They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
I've got into the habit on a Wednesday evening of stopping for a pint in the Victoria Tap, in Victoria Station, Manchester. Improbably, it's the perfect city centre pub. I know it's not relevant to the conversation, but I cannot contain my enthusiasm for this place. It's lovely.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
He tried to hold onto power after losing an election, the attempts at equivalence have never really worked as a result.
Well, not logically worked, it has worked on 40-50% of american voters.
By the way if you're on TwiX the Viz account is worth following. My favourites are the old fashioned ads. Like the one for wasp world, just off the A30.
I always loved their ads for commemorative chinaware, one featuring a teddy bear's first wet dream being a particular favourite.
It's totally wishful thinking to think that Trump will be stopped by legal issues. He's consolidating his lead, and by the time it comes to November, voters will be making an existential choice about the future of the USA, not passing judgment on whether Trump is "fit" for office.
Wow, a pro- Trump post from @williamglenn . Now there's a surprise.
Oh and the existential threat is not Biden, it's Trump.
The William Glenn Bot is in clear need of a reboot. So far, we have had William Glenn The Left Liberal Eurofederalist; William Green The Rightwing Brexiteer; William Glenn The Maga Trumpian. There are probably several William Glenns that I have missed, over the years.
What could be next, I wonder? An authoritarian misanthropic paleo-environmentalist nativist in the Sandy Rentool mould?
The fact is that the American right do not share the almost universally-held view of Trump in the UK. To fail to understand this and decline, on a moral basis, even to seek greater understanding about it, isn't going to make for very good political bets.
The insane elements of the American right don't, but plenty of sane American right people do, like Haley etc
That Trump is barely getting half of the vote in New Hampshire when he's effectively presumptive nominee already is ridiculously awful, but matches what an awful candidate he is.
But you can't win an election with your own zealots alone, you need to carry the middle too. And Trump is toxic to most American centrists too.
Which is why Trump lost last time, and why he'll most likely lose again this time.
It's fairly pig-ignorant to classify large swathes of any population as 'insane' - they're not clinically insane, plenty are intelligent and highly educated, but they are operating on a different paradigm, with a different perception of the world, than you or I. You prefer not to engage your brain, and that's fine. But as an amateur bystander, I'd say your lack of curiosity will affect your betting.
Its not a lack of curiosity, its a lack of respect.
Some voters have awful views that need to be defeated. The good thing in a democracy is they can be.
I understand why some Americans are supporting Trump, just as I understand why some Britons supported Jeremy Corbyn. Understanding and respecting are two totally different things, I didn't respect Corbyn and his acolytes, nor do I don't respect Trump.
Some Trump supporting Republicans probably have bad motives, as do some Biden-supporting Democrats. The majority are acting rationally given their hinterland and perception of the realities involved, which is different to yours. The fact that you prefer to categorise millions of people as intellectually deficient to the point of insanity because they don't share your omniscient view from Warrington is feeble-minded by any objective measure.
Millions voted for Jeremy Corbyn too. But he still lost anyway and rightly so.
So should Trump, for the same reasons.
Are you sure about the "same reasons" bit?
Corbyn, even if he would have been a terrible PM (vain, not as bright as he thought, some really bad ideas and allies) broadly stuck by the rules of the game. Had he lost a subsequent election, I doubt he would have tried to change the result and dared minions to stop him. (The "I don't care if MPs VONCd me, my mandate is from the party" thing doesn't quite count. Thems were the rules.)
As far as we can tell, Trump did. That's much more dangerous. Which is why it's so sad and alarming that he's dragging the entire Republican Party into grovelling before him.
Are you sure? He was never in a position to change the result but certainly blurred the lines wherever he could.
He responded to his 2017 defeat by acting as if he'd won the election. He responded to 80% of the PLP no confidencing him by blowing them a big raspberry and seeking to get minions in positions who could change/disregard the LP rules. He stood by while his own MPs were threatened by his minions and driven out of the party (shades of how Mike Pence was treated there).
Etc
He never held any power to abuse like Trump did, but what limited power he did have, he was willing to abuse.
You talk a load of bollocks
Corbyn was right to ignore the chicken coup. The membership gave him his mandate and under Labour rules the PLP had no way of overriding his mandate no matter how entitled they thought they were.
220 is not greater the 500,000 in the one member one vote system.
I should stick to subjects you know about rather than making shit up.
I realise that limits your scope to bugger all!
You should learn more about Parliamentary democracy.
The average elected MP has about 30,000 voters voting for them.
30,000 * 220 = 6,600,000 voters they represent (just Labour Party voters, disregarding the rest of the electorate they also represent) which is greater than 500,000.
Not under Labour Party rules for the Election of leader as introduced by Ed
One member one vote means exactly that.
Despite what entitled PLPers thought thay had one vote exactly the same as every other member.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.
No matter how bad things might get in terms of our politics in the UK any politician here who acted like Trump would have zero chance of winning .
Many will say what about Johnson . As far as I can remember he might have fathered lots of kids but I wouldn’t call him a threat to women , he also never mocked the disabled .
There are still red lines in UK politics . Thank heavens for that .
As I'm several days behind the curve, I thought I'd offer this:
In 2010, the incoming Coalition Government loosened the financial constraints under which Councils previously lived. Councils were allowed to purchase property for Investment purposes with the by-product of the rental yield offering an alternative income stream to Council Tax and Government grant.
At the time, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the only organistational able to go in and purchase commercial property for investment purposes were pension funds and local councils. Those who moved quickest landed some real bargains - fully tenanted shopping centres and office buildings for example. As more entered the market, the deals quickly became harder and less productive.
Even those who got the good investments found the rental yields accumulated were at most covering 10% of income but the value of the investments remained strong and the assets looked good on the balance sheets.
The pandemic changed the landscape - rental yields fell as tenants lef tor were unable to pay the rent and the collapse of the commercial property sector due to home working left councils sitting on assets worth much less than they were and many councils were lest dangerously exposed.
The other problem, as I've mentioned before, was the governance (or lack of it) of the investment portfolios - they were often run by wholly owned subsiduary organisations which lacked accountability through normal governance and often had senior officers and members as directors. Thus did the lines blur - officers thought they were members, members thought they were officers and the truth was often kept not only from other officers but from other members.
Some authorities tried other alternatives to property investment and these often ran into the same financial and governance issues.
It took a change of controlling party to get to the truth (and sometimes not even then). The incoming Party was left with the legacy of debt and mismanagement and forced to take action to undo the damage.
Gove is now seeking to force councils to sell those investment assets to bring in some capital receipts. Indeed, the Coalition Government, as part of the "Big Society" initiative wanted Councils to give away unused land and buildings to local groups as "community assets" while wanting Councils to seek alternative income streams. Now, presumably, any such land and buildings would be sold to the highest bidder.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.
No matter how bad things might get in terms of our politics in the UK any politician here who acted like Trump would have zero chance of winning .
Many will say what about Johnson . As far as I can remember he might have fathered lots of kids but I wouldn’t call him a threat to women , he also never mocked the disabled .
There are still red lines in UK politics . Thank heavens for that .
It's been said that Boris has written more books than Trump has read. A useful point of distinction.
As I'm several days behind the curve, I thought I'd offer this:
In 2010, the incoming Coalition Government loosened the financial constraints under which Councils previously lived. Councils were allowed to purchase property for Investment purposes with the by-product of the rental yield offering an alternative income stream to Council Tax and Government grant.
At the time, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the only organistational able to go in and purchase commercial property for investment purposes were pension funds and local councils. Those who moved quickest landed some real bargains - fully tenanted shopping centres and office buildings for example. As more entered the market, the deals quickly became harder and less productive.
Even those who got the good investments found the rental yields accumulated were at most covering 10% of income but the value of the investments remained strong and the assets looked good on the balance sheets.
The pandemic changed the landscape - rental yields fell as tenants lef tor were unable to pay the rent and the collapse of the commercial property sector due to home working left councils sitting on assets worth much less than they were and many councils were lest dangerously exposed.
The other problem, as I've mentioned before, was the governance (or lack of it) of the investment portfolios - they were often run by wholly owned subsiduary organisations which lacked accountability through normal governance and often had senior officers and members as directors. Thus did the lines blur - officers thought they were members, members thought they were officers and the truth was often kept not only from other officers but from other members.
Some authorities tried other alternatives to property investment and these often ran into the same financial and governance issues.
It took a change of controlling party to get to the truth (and sometimes not even then). The incoming Party was left with the legacy of debt and mismanagement and forced to take action to undo the damage.
Gove is now seeking to force councils to sell those investment assets to bring in some capital receipts. Indeed, the Coalition Government, as part of the "Big Society" initiative wanted Councils to give away unused land and buildings to local groups as "community assets" while wanting Councils to seek alternative income streams. Now, presumably, any such land and buildings would be sold to the highest bidder.
Also confusing capital and recurring expenditure? Hs2 converted to shitty tarmac patches in holes in the road springs to mind.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.
No matter how bad things might get in terms of our politics in the UK any politician here who acted like Trump would have zero chance of winning .
Many will say what about Johnson . As far as I can remember he might have fathered lots of kids but I wouldn’t call him a threat to women , he also never mocked the disabled .
There are still red lines in UK politics . Thank heavens for that .
It's been said that Boris has written more books than Trump has read. A useful point of distinction.
Neither is a partticularly high bar. And Mr Trump has written at least one book IIRC.
I've got into the habit on a Wednesday evening of stopping for a pint in the Victoria Tap, in Victoria Station, Manchester. Improbably, it's the perfect city centre pub. I know it's not relevant to the conversation, but I cannot contain my enthusiasm for this place. It's lovely.
Mancs has some great old pubs, preserved on little corners of land that would be worth a fortune if they could be built on. Peveril of the Peak is one of my favourites.
Either today or tomorrow we should get the result from the New York court on "disgorgement" for the series of fraudulent activities that the Trump organisation has already been found guilty of. Trump is going to be out of pocket to the tune of $300m - $500m. He'll say, as with the $83m defamation award "I will appeal". However, that requires a bond for the full amount to be put up. Maybe he has a friendly billionaire prepared to put that amount at risk (as the awards will very likely be upheld at appeal). And maybe he don't.
At the kindest, the Trump organisation was riddled with incompetence that should politically debar somebody from holding the office of America's CEO.
(There's also a $50m "loan" that has been discovered - a "loan" that risks further criminal charges being laid. It was discovered by the person put in charge of the Trump business empire from making transfers that could frustrate the recovery of the disgorgement payments. When he is on the media railing against that person making work to justify her charges, remember the appointment of that person was approved by Trump.)
There seems to have been a payment of $48m to him, with no recorded loan in the books of the Trump organisation.
Trump has filed tax returns with the federal government listing the $48m as a debt to the organisation, I think - so he hasn't payed tax on it as income. Which if the reported facts are true is pretty likely to be construed as tax evasion.
Of course the woman who says she'll vote for him even if he's dead probably doesn't think he should have to pay tax at all.
As an aside, loaning money to oneself so as to avoid paying income tax is one the most common forms of tax evasion. And if HMRC or the IRS finds you doing it, then you will be in big do do.
Indeed. And if the reported facts are accurate, this is a particularly blatant example up that.
In the old days when I had a personal service company, my accountant said to me "if you want to lend yourself money, then first don't do it. and second, if you are stupid enough to do it, make sure it's all repaid before the financial period ends."
Off topic (since talking Trump can make me tremble) here's another little tip to follow my 'drink wine from a sherry glass' yesterday. When you're slicing up some meat, say a chicken breast, execute at a slight angle to the meat's surface. You get a quicker, cleaner cut this way compared to going in perpendicular.
No I hadn't. V funny. I can be a bit unplugged and ivory tower sometimes.
Also, you're, what, early 60s? I suspect this is a generational thing: anyone who was a teenager 1985-1995 will get almist any Viz reference; for anyone who just missed out they can be almost totally ignorant of it.
Yes. Plus I went to live in Australia in the late 80s. So that's a bit of a blank culturally.
It's totally wishful thinking to think that Trump will be stopped by legal issues. He's consolidating his lead, and by the time it comes to November, voters will be making an existential choice about the future of the USA, not passing judgment on whether Trump is "fit" for office.
Wow, a pro- Trump post from @williamglenn . Now there's a surprise.
Oh and the existential threat is not Biden, it's Trump.
The William Glenn Bot is in clear need of a reboot. So far, we have had William Glenn The Left Liberal Eurofederalist; William Green The Rightwing Brexiteer; William Glenn The Maga Trumpian. There are probably several William Glenns that I have missed, over the years.
What could be next, I wonder? An authoritarian misanthropic paleo-environmentalist nativist in the Sandy Rentool mould?
The fact is that the American right do not share the almost universally-held view of Trump in the UK. To fail to understand this and decline, on a moral basis, even to seek greater understanding about it, isn't going to make for very good political bets.
The insane elements of the American right don't, but plenty of sane American right people do, like Haley etc
That Trump is barely getting half of the vote in New Hampshire when he's effectively presumptive nominee already is ridiculously awful, but matches what an awful candidate he is.
But you can't win an election with your own zealots alone, you need to carry the middle too. And Trump is toxic to most American centrists too.
Which is why Trump lost last time, and why he'll most likely lose again this time.
It's fairly pig-ignorant to classify large swathes of any population as 'insane' - they're not clinically insane, plenty are intelligent and highly educated, but they are operating on a different paradigm, with a different perception of the world, than you or I. You prefer not to engage your brain, and that's fine. But as an amateur bystander, I'd say your lack of curiosity will affect your betting.
Its not a lack of curiosity, its a lack of respect.
Some voters have awful views that need to be defeated. The good thing in a democracy is they can be.
I understand why some Americans are supporting Trump, just as I understand why some Britons supported Jeremy Corbyn. Understanding and respecting are two totally different things, I didn't respect Corbyn and his acolytes, nor do I don't respect Trump.
Some Trump supporting Republicans probably have bad motives, as do some Biden-supporting Democrats. The majority are acting rationally given their hinterland and perception of the realities involved, which is different to yours. The fact that you prefer to categorise millions of people as intellectually deficient to the point of insanity because they don't share your omniscient view from Warrington is feeble-minded by any objective measure.
Millions voted for Jeremy Corbyn too. But he still lost anyway and rightly so.
So should Trump, for the same reasons.
Are you sure about the "same reasons" bit?
Corbyn, even if he would have been a terrible PM (vain, not as bright as he thought, some really bad ideas and allies) broadly stuck by the rules of the game. Had he lost a subsequent election, I doubt he would have tried to change the result and dared minions to stop him. (The "I don't care if MPs VONCd me, my mandate is from the party" thing doesn't quite count. Thems were the rules.)
As far as we can tell, Trump did. That's much more dangerous. Which is why it's so sad and alarming that he's dragging the entire Republican Party into grovelling before him.
Are you sure? He was never in a position to change the result but certainly blurred the lines wherever he could.
He responded to his 2017 defeat by acting as if he'd won the election. He responded to 80% of the PLP no confidencing him by blowing them a big raspberry and seeking to get minions in positions who could change/disregard the LP rules. He stood by while his own MPs were threatened by his minions and driven out of the party (shades of how Mike Pence was treated there).
Etc
He never held any power to abuse like Trump did, but what limited power he did have, he was willing to abuse.
Trump is obviously several orders of magnitude more dangerous than Corbyn. He's more dangerous than any politician with a serious chance of government in a democratic country.
Which is not to say Corbyn wasn't dangerous or that it wouldn't have got quite ugly when things went wrong and tried to keep the project on the road at any cost by blaming others and trashing rules.
Just as Tory behaviour post-Brexit is not on the same level as Trump but has been dreadful, dangerous, and enabled terrible governance by ignoring rules and conventions and subsuming them to a supposed higher mandate.
Also confusing capital and recurring expenditure? Hs2 converted to shitty tarmac patches in holes in the road springs to mind.
Yes, capitalisation - the "get out of jail free" card to a point.
The problem with capital budgets for local authorities is they aren't reliable and there's so many projects on the go - each requiring a Project Manager, Consultants, Contractors, Subbies and the like. The onus is to "put a spade in the ground" by the end of the year the budget is set for so it can be accrued forward as ongoing capital works.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
There's a glimmer of hope for the Republican Party that people like her still exist within it.
Just listening to a recent Today podcast on the election, and they’ve already awarded it to Trump. The US interviewees, with famous BBC balance, are Mick Mulvaney* and Megyn Kelly. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vlkv
Why is BBC reporting on US politics so spectacularly bad ?
* https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444 Less than two hours after the AP called the race, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney arguing that Trump would “act and speak like a great president should — win or lose,” meaning that he would concede humbly if he lost.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.
No matter how bad things might get in terms of our politics in the UK any politician here who acted like Trump would have zero chance of winning .
Many will say what about Johnson . As far as I can remember he might have fathered lots of kids but I wouldn’t call him a threat to women , he also never mocked the disabled .
There are still red lines in UK politics . Thank heavens for that .
It's been said that Boris has written more books than Trump has read. A useful point of distinction.
Neither is a partticularly high bar. And Mr Trump has written at least one book IIRC.
Maybe. But Boris is a seriously good writer. Distinctive style, effortlessly entertaining and self-deprecatory sense of humour. Very different proposition from the orange one.
It's totally wishful thinking to think that Trump will be stopped by legal issues. He's consolidating his lead, and by the time it comes to November, voters will be making an existential choice about the future of the USA, not passing judgment on whether Trump is "fit" for office.
Wow, a pro- Trump post from @williamglenn . Now there's a surprise.
Oh and the existential threat is not Biden, it's Trump.
The William Glenn Bot is in clear need of a reboot. So far, we have had William Glenn The Left Liberal Eurofederalist; William Green The Rightwing Brexiteer; William Glenn The Maga Trumpian. There are probably several William Glenns that I have missed, over the years.
What could be next, I wonder? An authoritarian misanthropic paleo-environmentalist nativist in the Sandy Rentool mould?
The fact is that the American right do not share the almost universally-held view of Trump in the UK. To fail to understand this and decline, on a moral basis, even to seek greater understanding about it, isn't going to make for very good political bets.
The insane elements of the American right don't, but plenty of sane American right people do, like Haley etc
That Trump is barely getting half of the vote in New Hampshire when he's effectively presumptive nominee already is ridiculously awful, but matches what an awful candidate he is.
But you can't win an election with your own zealots alone, you need to carry the middle too. And Trump is toxic to most American centrists too.
Which is why Trump lost last time, and why he'll most likely lose again this time.
It's fairly pig-ignorant to classify large swathes of any population as 'insane' - they're not clinically insane, plenty are intelligent and highly educated, but they are operating on a different paradigm, with a different perception of the world, than you or I. You prefer not to engage your brain, and that's fine. But as an amateur bystander, I'd say your lack of curiosity will affect your betting.
Its not a lack of curiosity, its a lack of respect.
Some voters have awful views that need to be defeated. The good thing in a democracy is they can be.
I understand why some Americans are supporting Trump, just as I understand why some Britons supported Jeremy Corbyn. Understanding and respecting are two totally different things, I didn't respect Corbyn and his acolytes, nor do I don't respect Trump.
Some Trump supporting Republicans probably have bad motives, as do some Biden-supporting Democrats. The majority are acting rationally given their hinterland and perception of the realities involved, which is different to yours. The fact that you prefer to categorise millions of people as intellectually deficient to the point of insanity because they don't share your omniscient view from Warrington is feeble-minded by any objective measure.
Millions voted for Jeremy Corbyn too. But he still lost anyway and rightly so.
So should Trump, for the same reasons.
Are you sure about the "same reasons" bit?
Corbyn, even if he would have been a terrible PM (vain, not as bright as he thought, some really bad ideas and allies) broadly stuck by the rules of the game. Had he lost a subsequent election, I doubt he would have tried to change the result and dared minions to stop him. (The "I don't care if MPs VONCd me, my mandate is from the party" thing doesn't quite count. Thems were the rules.)
As far as we can tell, Trump did. That's much more dangerous. Which is why it's so sad and alarming that he's dragging the entire Republican Party into grovelling before him.
Are you sure? He was never in a position to change the result but certainly blurred the lines wherever he could.
He responded to his 2017 defeat by acting as if he'd won the election. He responded to 80% of the PLP no confidencing him by blowing them a big raspberry and seeking to get minions in positions who could change/disregard the LP rules. He stood by while his own MPs were threatened by his minions and driven out of the party (shades of how Mike Pence was treated there).
Etc
He never held any power to abuse like Trump did, but what limited power he did have, he was willing to abuse.
Trump is obviously several orders of magnitude more dangerous than Corbyn. He's more dangerous than any politician with a serious chance of government in a democratic country.
Which is not to say Corbyn wasn't dangerous or that it wouldn't have got quite ugly when things went wrong and tried to keep the project on the road at any cost by blaming others and trashing rules.
Just as Tory behaviour post-Brexit is not on the same level as Trump but has been dreadful, dangerous, and enabled terrible governance by ignoring rules and conventions and subsuming them to a supposed higher mandate.
So, what you're saying is that Corbyn is syphilis and Trump is herpes?
You don't want to catch either, but if you absolutely have to chose, it's the syphilis you'd go for.
I've got into the habit on a Wednesday evening of stopping for a pint in the Victoria Tap, in Victoria Station, Manchester. Improbably, it's the perfect city centre pub. I know it's not relevant to the conversation, but I cannot contain my enthusiasm for this place. It's lovely.
Mancs has some great old pubs, preserved on little corners of land that would be worth a fortune if they could be built on. Peveril of the Peak is one of my favourites.
No need to concern ourselves again with Jezbollah. A loser who didn't carry the party with him and leaves no legacy. So much for the crank left transforming politics.
It's totally wishful thinking to think that Trump will be stopped by legal issues. He's consolidating his lead, and by the time it comes to November, voters will be making an existential choice about the future of the USA, not passing judgment on whether Trump is "fit" for office.
Wow, a pro- Trump post from @williamglenn . Now there's a surprise.
Oh and the existential threat is not Biden, it's Trump.
The William Glenn Bot is in clear need of a reboot. So far, we have had William Glenn The Left Liberal Eurofederalist; William Green The Rightwing Brexiteer; William Glenn The Maga Trumpian. There are probably several William Glenns that I have missed, over the years.
What could be next, I wonder? An authoritarian misanthropic paleo-environmentalist nativist in the Sandy Rentool mould?
The fact is that the American right do not share the almost universally-held view of Trump in the UK. To fail to understand this and decline, on a moral basis, even to seek greater understanding about it, isn't going to make for very good political bets.
The insane elements of the American right don't, but plenty of sane American right people do, like Haley etc
That Trump is barely getting half of the vote in New Hampshire when he's effectively presumptive nominee already is ridiculously awful, but matches what an awful candidate he is.
But you can't win an election with your own zealots alone, you need to carry the middle too. And Trump is toxic to most American centrists too.
Which is why Trump lost last time, and why he'll most likely lose again this time.
It's fairly pig-ignorant to classify large swathes of any population as 'insane' - they're not clinically insane, plenty are intelligent and highly educated, but they are operating on a different paradigm, with a different perception of the world, than you or I. You prefer not to engage your brain, and that's fine. But as an amateur bystander, I'd say your lack of curiosity will affect your betting.
Have you never seen the Dukes of Hazzard?
No.
You've missed out. Must have been my favourite TV show when I was a kid. Catherine Bach in cut off denim shorts, a 1969 Dodge Charger named after a Confederate general, never ending car chases down the back roads of Georgia, just good ol boys, never doing no harm... Innocent times. No doubt the Woke Police would have it shut down today!
You misspelt Confed’rate
The only DoH I can remember the 'plot' of, was one where Boss Hogg was running a gambling scam; from memory, a horse race was being broadcast into a gambling den, and he broadcast was being delayed so that BH would know the result, and change the odd accordingly. I think...
Off topic (since talking Trump can make me tremble) here's another little tip to follow my 'drink wine from a sherry glass' yesterday. When you're slicing up some meat, say a chicken breast, execute at a slight angle to the meat's surface. You get a quicker, cleaner cut this way compared to going in perpendicular.
No I hadn't. V funny. I can be a bit unplugged and ivory tower sometimes.
Also, you're, what, early 60s? I suspect this is a generational thing: anyone who was a teenager 1985-1995 will get almist any Viz reference; for anyone who just missed out they can be almost totally ignorant of it.
Yes. Plus I went to live in Australia in the late 80s. So that's a bit of a blank culturally.
Aussies I worked with used to love Viz.
I'm sure they could have added whole chapters to the Profanosaurus. Their computer system used for processing vast amounts of 3D data was really called the Wizard's Sleeve.
Off topic (since talking Trump can make me tremble) here's another little tip to follow my 'drink wine from a sherry glass' yesterday. When you're slicing up some meat, say a chicken breast, execute at a slight angle to the meat's surface. You get a quicker, cleaner cut this way compared to going in perpendicular.
The world is changing. The Old Knowledge passes. One day I will say "I'll get me coat" and no-one will understand... ☹️
Which begs the question, how can we be sure (of anything) if the world is constantly changing?
Answers on a postcard, but the traditional modern era answer (17th century, now heavily contested) is that you can be sure beyond doubt that it is I who is asking that question. If you are sure of just one thing only then the ultimate sceptical question is answered. There actually is some knowledge.
I've got into the habit on a Wednesday evening of stopping for a pint in the Victoria Tap, in Victoria Station, Manchester. Improbably, it's the perfect city centre pub. I know it's not relevant to the conversation, but I cannot contain my enthusiasm for this place. It's lovely.
It's totally wishful thinking to think that Trump will be stopped by legal issues. He's consolidating his lead, and by the time it comes to November, voters will be making an existential choice about the future of the USA, not passing judgment on whether Trump is "fit" for office.
Wow, a pro- Trump post from @williamglenn . Now there's a surprise.
Oh and the existential threat is not Biden, it's Trump.
The William Glenn Bot is in clear need of a reboot. So far, we have had William Glenn The Left Liberal Eurofederalist; William Green The Rightwing Brexiteer; William Glenn The Maga Trumpian. There are probably several William Glenns that I have missed, over the years.
What could be next, I wonder? An authoritarian misanthropic paleo-environmentalist nativist in the Sandy Rentool mould?
The fact is that the American right do not share the almost universally-held view of Trump in the UK. To fail to understand this and decline, on a moral basis, even to seek greater understanding about it, isn't going to make for very good political bets.
The insane elements of the American right don't, but plenty of sane American right people do, like Haley etc
That Trump is barely getting half of the vote in New Hampshire when he's effectively presumptive nominee already is ridiculously awful, but matches what an awful candidate he is.
But you can't win an election with your own zealots alone, you need to carry the middle too. And Trump is toxic to most American centrists too.
Which is why Trump lost last time, and why he'll most likely lose again this time.
It's fairly pig-ignorant to classify large swathes of any population as 'insane' - they're not clinically insane, plenty are intelligent and highly educated, but they are operating on a different paradigm, with a different perception of the world, than you or I. You prefer not to engage your brain, and that's fine. But as an amateur bystander, I'd say your lack of curiosity will affect your betting.
Its not a lack of curiosity, its a lack of respect.
Some voters have awful views that need to be defeated. The good thing in a democracy is they can be.
I understand why some Americans are supporting Trump, just as I understand why some Britons supported Jeremy Corbyn. Understanding and respecting are two totally different things, I didn't respect Corbyn and his acolytes, nor do I don't respect Trump.
Some Trump supporting Republicans probably have bad motives, as do some Biden-supporting Democrats. The majority are acting rationally given their hinterland and perception of the realities involved, which is different to yours. The fact that you prefer to categorise millions of people as intellectually deficient to the point of insanity because they don't share your omniscient view from Warrington is feeble-minded by any objective measure.
Millions voted for Jeremy Corbyn too. But he still lost anyway and rightly so.
So should Trump, for the same reasons.
I am not offering an opinion on whether he should lose; I am saying that whether he will lose depends a lot on people who hold very different views to you or I, and if the extent of our understanding of their motivations is 'they're mad', we won't be able to make good predictions as to how they will vote.
There's a glimmer of hope for the Republican Party that people like her still exist within it.
Just listening to a recent Today podcast on the election, and they’ve already awarded it to Trump. The US interviewees, with famous BBC balance, are Mick Mulvaney* and Megyn Kelly. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vlkv
Why is BBC reporting on US politics so spectacularly bad ?
* https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444 Less than two hours after the AP called the race, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney arguing that Trump would “act and speak like a great president should — win or lose,” meaning that he would concede humbly if he lost.
Why is BBC reporting on US politics so spectacularly bad ?
You added three redundant words. I can't think when, or if, BBC reporting was last spectacularly good on any subject. We had the joys of the pandemic where the BBC along with Sky and ITV turned it into a game of gotcha, and couldn't understand the mathematics or numbers in a way that was much better discussed here. I don't think they ever fully grasped such simple concepts as the Tuesday effect in the data.
The BBC seems to view reporting nowadays as simply parroting what others say, without any regard to understanding it themselves. You can't properly report, that which you don't even understand.
They are used to absolve them of supporting someone who mocked the disabled , abused women, amongst a litany of things aswell as trying to subvert democracy.
I’m not interested in hearing anymore excuses by the commentariat in the UK as to why we should try and understand Trump supporters .
Then we get the desperate false equivalence between Trump and Biden .
There are no excuses for supporting Trump . Not now not ever !
Well said.
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.
No matter how bad things might get in terms of our politics in the UK any politician here who acted like Trump would have zero chance of winning .
Many will say what about Johnson . As far as I can remember he might have fathered lots of kids but I wouldn’t call him a threat to women , he also never mocked the disabled .
There are still red lines in UK politics . Thank heavens for that .
It's been said that Boris has written more books than Trump has read. A useful point of distinction.
Neither is a partticularly high bar. And Mr Trump has written at least one book IIRC.
Maybe. But Boris is a seriously good writer. Distinctive style, effortlessly entertaining and self-deprecatory sense of humour. Very different proposition from the orange one.
I've got into the habit on a Wednesday evening of stopping for a pint in the Victoria Tap, in Victoria Station, Manchester. Improbably, it's the perfect city centre pub. I know it's not relevant to the conversation, but I cannot contain my enthusiasm for this place. It's lovely.
Comments
Its just like the Corbyn apologists a few years ago.
It was wrong then, and its wrong now.
It was Cyclefree that first drew the comparison between Trump and Corbyn and it is eery despite them being from quite different wings of different parties, how comparable they and their acolytes can get.
Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.
Not that I expect either to come out for Biden He tried to hold onto power after losing an election, the attempts at equivalence have never really worked as a result.
Well, not logically worked, it has worked on 40-50% of american voters.
One member one vote means exactly that.
Despite what entitled PLPers thought thay had one vote exactly the same as every other member.
Many will say what about Johnson . As far as I can remember he might have fathered lots of kids but I wouldn’t call him a threat to women , he also never mocked the disabled .
There are still red lines in UK politics . Thank heavens for that .
As I'm several days behind the curve, I thought I'd offer this:
In 2010, the incoming Coalition Government loosened the financial constraints under which Councils previously lived. Councils were allowed to purchase property for Investment purposes with the by-product of the rental yield offering an alternative income stream to Council Tax and Government grant.
At the time, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the only organistational able to go in and purchase commercial property for investment purposes were pension funds and local councils. Those who moved quickest landed some real bargains - fully tenanted shopping centres and office buildings for example. As more entered the market, the deals quickly became harder and less productive.
Even those who got the good investments found the rental yields accumulated were at most covering 10% of income but the value of the investments remained strong and the assets looked good on the balance sheets.
The pandemic changed the landscape - rental yields fell as tenants lef tor were unable to pay the rent and the collapse of the commercial property sector due to home working left councils sitting on assets worth much less than they were and many councils were lest dangerously exposed.
The other problem, as I've mentioned before, was the governance (or lack of it) of the investment portfolios - they were often run by wholly owned subsiduary organisations which lacked accountability through normal governance and often had senior officers and members as directors. Thus did the lines blur - officers thought they were members, members thought they were officers and the truth was often kept not only from other officers but from other members.
Some authorities tried other alternatives to property investment and these often ran into the same financial and governance issues.
It took a change of controlling party to get to the truth (and sometimes not even then). The incoming Party was left with the legacy of debt and mismanagement and forced to take action to undo the damage.
Gove is now seeking to force councils to sell those investment assets to bring in some capital receipts. Indeed, the Coalition Government, as part of the "Big Society" initiative wanted Councils to give away unused land and buildings to local groups as "community assets" while wanting Councils to seek alternative income streams. Now, presumably, any such land and buildings would be sold to the highest bidder.
https://themanc.com/eats/the-weird-and-wonderful-history-of-the-peveril-of-the-peak/
Which is not to say Corbyn wasn't dangerous or that it wouldn't have got quite ugly when things went wrong and tried to keep the project on the road at any cost by blaming others and trashing rules.
Just as Tory behaviour post-Brexit is not on the same level as Trump but has been dreadful, dangerous, and enabled terrible governance by ignoring rules and conventions and subsuming them to a supposed higher mandate.
The problem with capital budgets for local authorities is they aren't reliable and there's so many projects on the go - each requiring a Project Manager, Consultants, Contractors, Subbies and the like. The onus is to "put a spade in the ground" by the end of the year the budget is set for so it can be accrued forward as ongoing capital works.
The US interviewees, with famous BBC balance, are Mick Mulvaney* and Megyn Kelly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vlkv
Why is BBC reporting on US politics so spectacularly bad ?
* https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444
Less than two hours after the AP called the race, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney arguing that Trump would “act and speak like a great president should — win or lose,” meaning that he would concede humbly if he lost.
Does feel rather like one of Putin's enemies falling out a 14th floor window a day after he fell out of one on the 10th floor.
You have to make sure.
You don't want to catch either, but if you absolutely have to chose, it's the syphilis you'd go for.
I'm sure they could have added whole chapters to the Profanosaurus. Their computer system used for processing vast amounts of 3D data was really called the Wizard's Sleeve.
New Thread (from me)
You added three redundant words. I can't think when, or if, BBC reporting was last spectacularly good on any subject. We had the joys of the pandemic where the BBC along with Sky and ITV turned it into a game of gotcha, and couldn't understand the mathematics or numbers in a way that was much better discussed here. I don't think they ever fully grasped such simple concepts as the Tuesday effect in the data.
The BBC seems to view reporting nowadays as simply parroting what others say, without any regard to understanding it themselves. You can't properly report, that which you don't even understand.