I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I normally disagree with 148grss on just about everything but he is correct chaz is a wanker
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
Hitler was elected, Putin was elected, Trump was elected, Mugabe was elected. Half of the benefit of constitutional monarchy is it prevents another politician becoming head of state. Instead we leave party politics and politicians to the head of government, his Cabinet and Parliament
I know you will enjoy me calling you a Catholic priest - this is small, those are far away.
The election of Hitler does not negate the concept of elections. Every other Chancellor was removable - many at a great speed. How do I remove the King?
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
Hitler was elected, Putin was elected, Trump was elected, Mugabe was elected. Half of the benefit of constitutional monarchy is it prevents another politician becoming head of state. Instead we leave party politics and politicians to the head of government, his Cabinet and Parliament
Parliament can vote to make anyone king. Or queen.
Ultimately, that's why Charles is where he is. Not because - as the assertion at the start of this sub-thread - someone's x-gt-grandfather was a better murderer than someone else's but because parliament awarded the crown to George I and his descendants. If it wanted to change that, it could. Indeed, it did. Technically, Edward VIII couldn't abdicate; it was parliament passing an Act which handed the crown to George VI.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
This is the core of the reasoning, on pages 40-41:
“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.” See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1754887673087451250
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
He’ll always be the Prince of Wales to me, I mean for the first 44 years of my life that’s what he was.
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
There was something reassuring about HMQ - the eternal monarch who seemed part of the scenery. Now she's gone what do we have? Discarded siblings, the wait forever never mind King, and the next generation down who are awful.
Too many TV servies get commissioned one series too many - or worse. The Crown is definitely one. We're bored of what is left of the main characters, and the shoutier new cast members brought in a few years ago just remind us how crap it is.
The TV series isn't much better either.
Liz was a nice person, I met her also met chaz and frankly he is an entitled little shit
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
He’ll always be the Prince of Wales to me, I mean for the first 44 years of my life that’s what he was.
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
I have no idea if it means anything that he is the Duke of Rothesay north of the border. A town whose top attraction, certainly according to Tripadvisor, is the local public convenience.
(But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that these days people are delighted to find the khazi actually open and working.)
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
Hitler was elected, Putin was elected, Trump was elected, Mugabe was elected. Half of the benefit of constitutional monarchy is it prevents another politician becoming head of state. Instead we leave party politics and politicians to the head of government, his Cabinet and Parliament
Parliament can vote to make anyone king. Or queen.
Ultimately, that's why Charles is where he is. Not because - as the assertion at the start of this sub-thread - someone's x-gt-grandfather was a better murderer than someone else's but because parliament awarded the crown to George I and his descendants. If it wanted to change that, it could. Indeed, it did. Technically, Edward VIII couldn't abdicate; it was parliament passing an Act which handed the crown to George VI.
Fair point. 1688 slightly changed the whole top murderer and his descendants thing.
(Though someone really ought to inform the crawling Witchell tendency.)
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
He’ll always be the Prince of Wales to me, I mean for the first 44 years of my life that’s what he was.
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
There was something reassuring about HMQ - the eternal monarch who seemed part of the scenery. Now she's gone what do we have? Discarded siblings, the wait forever never mind King, and the next generation down who are awful.
Too many TV servies get commissioned one series too many - or worse. The Crown is definitely one. We're bored of what is left of the main characters, and the shoutier new cast members brought in a few years ago just remind us how crap it is.
The TV series isn't much better either.
Liz was a nice person, I met her also met chaz and frankly he is an entitled little shit
I know of an eminent scientist who was given the job of making tea for the then Prince of Wales when he was visiting a science-based organisation. Very precise instructions were sent ahead: Earl Grey, lemon and honey being the constituents I can recall. The tea was duly prepared. He didn't drink it.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
Hitler was elected, Putin was elected, Trump was elected, Mugabe was elected. Half of the benefit of constitutional monarchy is it prevents another politician becoming head of state. Instead we leave party politics and politicians to the head of government, his Cabinet and Parliament
I know you will enjoy me calling you a Catholic priest - this is small, those are far away.
The election of Hitler does not negate the concept of elections. Every other Chancellor was removable - many at a great speed. How do I remove the King?
You might want to be subject to him, I don't.
This argument is closely related to someone wanting to disown their parents because they didn't choose them.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
He’ll always be the Prince of Wales to me, I mean for the first 44 years of my life that’s what he was.
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
There was something reassuring about HMQ - the eternal monarch who seemed part of the scenery. Now she's gone what do we have? Discarded siblings, the wait forever never mind King, and the next generation down who are awful.
Too many TV servies get commissioned one series too many - or worse. The Crown is definitely one. We're bored of what is left of the main characters, and the shoutier new cast members brought in a few years ago just remind us how crap it is.
The TV series isn't much better either.
Liz was a nice person, I met her also met chaz and frankly he is an entitled little shit
I know of an eminent scientist who was given the job of making tea for the then Prince of Wales when he was visiting a science-based organisation. Very precise instructions were sent ahead: Earl Grey, lemon and honey being the constituents I can recall. The tea was duly prepared. He didn't drink it.
Not by any means a republican....I just dont like charles he makes me want to thump him
I read @Leon raving on about Biden having dementia. That's probably an exaggeration, but he certainly has senior moments.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
People are misusing the D word. Neither Trump nor Biden would fail a dementia test. But as you say, it's about the choice and there is no choice really. Because only one of them means well.
Does the American dementia test ask who is the President?
I read @Leon raving on about Biden having dementia. That's probably an exaggeration, but he certainly has senior moments.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
People are misusing the D word. Neither Trump nor Biden would fail a dementia test. But as you say, it's about the choice and there is no choice really. Because only one of them means well.
Does the American dementia test ask who is the President?
I read @Leon raving on about Biden having dementia. That's probably an exaggeration, but he certainly has senior moments.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
People are misusing the D word. Neither Trump nor Biden would fail a dementia test. But as you say, it's about the choice and there is no choice really. Because only one of them means well.
Does the American dementia test ask who is the President?
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
Tenerife. TENERIFE
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
Look, that was my first 'proper' holiday in 12 years, 4 hour flight, winter sun, it was a big deal for me, meant a lot, and it really worked out. So I don't appreciate it being disparaged. Despite what you say I'll probably go again next year, this time for 10 days. Or I might try Gran Canaria.
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
Perhaps Sunak realises that an interview with Piers Anus on Tory TV isn't worth his while.
I presume you mean Starmer - easy mistake to make.
Horrible when someone posts something they think is really clever but it’s let down by a blooper. Like someone talking to you in the pub and you notice toilet roll stuck to their shoe
Give over - even I think its funny.
To go back to my fumbled point, why should Starmer bother? The only person Piers Moron ever interviews is himself. Its always about himself.
I don’t know, he was up for a soft soap Life Stories with him, so it’s not about Morgan . But he might as well avoid scrutiny, as he’s winning by just not being a Tory
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Spain reintroduced its monarchy only a few decades ago
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
Hitler was elected, Putin was elected, Trump was elected, Mugabe was elected. Half of the benefit of constitutional monarchy is it prevents another politician becoming head of state. Instead we leave party politics and politicians to the head of government, his Cabinet and Parliament
I know you will enjoy me calling you a Catholic priest - this is small, those are far away.
The election of Hitler does not negate the concept of elections. Every other Chancellor was removable - many at a great speed. How do I remove the King?
You might want to be subject to him, I don't.
No the election of Hitler probably does not negate the concept of elections with universal suffrage. However it does show the concept is fallible given he was far worse than even our worst monarchs at the time of absolute monarchy.
We can remove our PMs swiftly, as their governments actually decide our laws, taxes, spending, whether we go to war etc.
The greatest benefit of our monarchy as well as the wonderful tradition and pageantry is they are not party politicians, just ceremonial heads of state
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
They're going to sweep into power because they're not the Tories. That's pretty much it.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
I pop off for an hour to power hose my BBQ (I'm sure I can put all the bits back together again) only to find all hell has broken loose and Casino is challenging yet another PB to fight again.
Is there some sort of alert that can be set up so we can be notified on our mobiles when this happens please? Don't want to miss the next one.
Yes, we need a Barney alert system. @rcs1000 perhaps one to add onto the next server update shopping list.
An Early warning systm.
Perhaps there could be some sort of email alert sound file, with rcs adding a few seconds from a world war II siren, every time Casino and others are about to enter a royal stramash, or Leon is about to sit down to one of his boozier lunches, and wreak his vengeance on the woke.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
Tenerife. TENERIFE
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
Look, that was my first 'proper' holiday in 12 years, 4 hour flight, winter sun, it was a big deal for me, meant a lot, and it really worked out. So I don't appreciate it being disparaged. Despite what you say I'll probably go again next year, this time for 10 days. Or I might try Gran Canaria.
Or you could go to Blackpool. It's good there!
Ultimately it's up to each person where they want to go if indeed they want to go anywhere at all!
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I appreciate that it is hard for you to read a screen through the saliva you've drooled on it, and logic is not something you have even a passing acquaintance with, but he said "more support" which, in simple terms, means that republican movements in monarchies poll higher than restorationist movements in republics. It does not mean that stable monarchies want to become republics, as you suggest.
It is, I think, uncontroversial to say that support for a republic in the UK is, in percentage terms, higher than support for restoring the monarchy in the US. That's the point being made. Nothing more.
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
The crazy thing is that Sir Keir could be radical, by saying he’d pretty much reverse Brexit or at least restore FOM. That’s what he was agitating to do between 2016 & 2020, yet now he’s on the brink of power, with Brexit less popular than ever and non EU immigration through the roof, he won’t hear of it.
He could probably nationalise a few things too, as he said he would, and he’s ruled that out too despite it being quite popular I’d guess
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
Trump is certainly suffering from mental decline too, to the point of early dementia. He's making too many errors of fact (uncontested fact, not Trump-fact) for us to reasonably come to any other conclusion.
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
If I were so wrong about Truss coming back, would she have been chosen to front a "Popular Conservatism" group? Looks like she's chosen the vehicle to bring her back. A group of right wing Tory MPs is the fresh air the party needs.
If I were so wrong about Truss coming back, would she have been chosen to front a "Popular Conservatism" group? Looks like she's chosen the vehicle to bring her back. A group of right wing Tory MPs is the fresh air the party needs.
Other Popular Conservatives members like Simon Clarke, Priti Patel or even Jacob Rees Mogg have more chance of being a future Conservative leader than Truss again
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
The crazy thing is that Sir Keir could be radical, by saying he’d pretty much reverse Brexit or at least restore FOM. That’s what he was agitating to do between 2016 & 2020, yet now he’s on the brink of power, with Brexit less popular than ever and non EU immigration through the roof, he won’t hear of it.
There’s a scenario where newly elected Keir goes into the telephone box and emerges, emboldened and radical, ready to push through the widescale changes needed to rescue our country from its current Tory-inflicted malaise.
Then there’s the Blair first-term scenario where PM Keir is frightened of his own shadow and determinedly sticks to whatever ‘trap’ Tory spending plans Sunak has left him, and we have to endure another four to five years of nothing working and nothing being resolved.
Placing the odds as 20% the former and 80% the latter is starting to feel optimistic.
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
They're going to sweep into power because they're not the Tories. That's pretty much it.
Personally I think it is regretable.
The Tories need a good shellacking, so that they can reset properly. The Country however needs a decent Opposition, and it seems most unlikely one will be available.
If I were so wrong about Truss coming back, would she have been chosen to front a "Popular Conservatism" group? Looks like she's chosen the vehicle to bring her back. A group of right wing Tory MPs is the fresh air the party needs.
Other Popular Conservatives members like Simon Clarke, Priti Patel or even Jacob Rees Mogg have more chance of being a future Conservative leader than Truss again
I have more chance of being a future CON leader than Liz Truss has 👍
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
They're going to sweep into power because they're not the Tories. That's pretty much it.
Personally I think it is regretable.
The Tories need a good shellacking, so that they can reset properly. The Country however needs a decent Opposition, and it seems most unlikely one will be available.
We need a decent government way more than we need a decent opposition, right now.
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
The crazy thing is that Sir Keir could be radical, by saying he’d pretty much reverse Brexit or at least restore FOM. That’s what he was agitating to do between 2016 & 2020, yet now he’s on the brink of power, with Brexit less popular than ever and non EU immigration through the roof, he won’t hear of it.
There’s a scenario where newly elected Kier goes into the telephone box and emerges, emboldened and radical, ready to push through the widescale changes needed to rescue our country from its current Tory-inflicted malaise.
Then there’s the Blair first-term scenario where PM Kier is frightened of his own shadow and determinedly sticks to whatever ‘trap’ Tory spending plans Sunak has left him, and we have to endure another four to five years of nothing working and nothing being resolved.
Placing the odds as 20% the former and 80% the latter is starting to feel optimistic.
There's a third scenario where Keir comes into office with a bold plan to implement lots of constitutional legislation that does nothing to help and makes the malaise worse.
If I were so wrong about Truss coming back, would she have been chosen to front a "Popular Conservatism" group? Looks like she's chosen the vehicle to bring her back. A group of right wing Tory MPs is the fresh air the party needs.
shades of "People's Front of Judea" and "Judean People's Front"....
This is a big thing. When Vesuvius erupted in 76AD, a library containing hundreds of scrolls was destroyed, and the scrolls carbonised. Some have been successfully opened, but this is a destructive process that often fails. The new prize uses very precise non-destructive 3D scanning of a scroll, and awards people who can find text in the resultant data.
Late last year, it was announced that a couple of people had uncovered a few letters in part of the scroll. Using this data, a team has found entire columns of text.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
Tenerife. TENERIFE
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
Look, that was my first 'proper' holiday in 12 years, 4 hour flight, winter sun, it was a big deal for me, meant a lot, and it really worked out. So I don't appreciate it being disparaged. Despite what you say I'll probably go again next year, this time for 10 days. Or I might try Gran Canaria.
Or you could go to Blackpool. It's good there!
Ultimately it's up to each person where they want to go if indeed they want to go anywhere at all!
Ooo no, thanks, but not Blackpool. Not in January. Can you imagine.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
Trump is certainly suffering from mental decline too, to the point of early dementia. He's making too many errors of fact (uncontested fact, not Trump-fact) for us to reasonably come to any other conclusion.
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
It's a chronic indictment of their political system, but can we be smug about it?
We had to choose between Johnson and Corbyn. Then 'we' had a choice of Truss/Mordaunt/Sunak.
The contestants for the forthcoming contest have a very low bar to clear.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
In American election terms, 55-45 isn't really tight, of course.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
Trump is certainly suffering from mental decline too, to the point of early dementia. He's making too many errors of fact (uncontested fact, not Trump-fact) for us to reasonably come to any other conclusion.
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
History books will giggle in amazement at the fact America coughed up (it seems) Biden v Trump: THE REMATCH
That’s if the world survives long enough for there to be historians, looking back
If GPT5 is as good as OpenAI claim, it would almost certainly make a better president than either of them. In fact GPT2 might do OK in comparison. Or a ZX Spectrum. Or a cucumber
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
Trump is certainly suffering from mental decline too, to the point of early dementia. He's making too many errors of fact (uncontested fact, not Trump-fact) for us to reasonably come to any other conclusion.
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
History books will giggle in amazement at the fact America coughed up (it seems) Biden v Trump: THE REMATCH
That’s if the world survives long enough for there to be historians, looking back
If GPT5 is as good as OpenAI claim, it would almost certainly make a better president than either of them. In fact GPT2 might do OK in comparison. Or a ZX Spectrum. Or a cucumber
That video of Biden talking about Mitterrand from Germany is pretty scary really.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
I wouldn't take polls at this stage as at all indicative predictions. Far too much has still to happen, from third party candidates entering (or withdrawing from, or being sidelined from) the campaign, to international events, to full-on red-on-blue campaigning, to Trump's court cases, to who knows what else.
Trump is a better campaigner than Biden. He also repels people. Can he inspire more people to back him than to stop him*? Yes, against Biden-Harris, I think he can.
* In the right places; obviously he doesn't need an actual national plurality to win.
If I were so wrong about Truss coming back, would she have been chosen to front a "Popular Conservatism" group? Looks like she's chosen the vehicle to bring her back. A group of right wing Tory MPs is the fresh air the party needs.
She'd love another crack at it. And perhaps the world would be ready this time.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
Trump is certainly suffering from mental decline too, to the point of early dementia. He's making too many errors of fact (uncontested fact, not Trump-fact) for us to reasonably come to any other conclusion.
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
History books will giggle in amazement at the fact America coughed up (it seems) Biden v Trump: THE REMATCH
That’s if the world survives long enough for there to be historians, looking back
If GPT5 is as good as OpenAI claim, it would almost certainly make a better president than either of them. In fact GPT2 might do OK in comparison. Or a ZX Spectrum. Or a cucumber
That video of Biden talking about Mitterrand from Germany is pretty scary really.
It's quite symbolic of a worldview that's frozen at the end of the Cold War, which is a problem shared by many in the West who don't have the excuse of dementia.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
I think this is why most people fail to give up drinking and also eating too much. It's so boring.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
In American election terms, 55-45 isn't really tight, of course.
That's true, but I think he means iho Trump has a 55% chance of winning against Biden.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I would give a little more credence to this opinion if Trump hadn't already served a term. One where, from a UK perspective, the negative impact of the US was minimal - I'd go so far as to say reduced. The impact on the US is for US citizens to decide, but it doesn't seem to have been a disaster. It's a strange form of Stockholm syndrome where UK citizens are desperately railing against the return of a President who was generally marginally well-disposed toward the UK, in favour of one who tends to snarl and snap at us, even in his more lucid moments.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
I don't know: Trump is also looking increasingly senile
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
Trump is certainly suffering from mental decline too, to the point of early dementia. He's making too many errors of fact (uncontested fact, not Trump-fact) for us to reasonably come to any other conclusion.
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
History books will giggle in amazement at the fact America coughed up (it seems) Biden v Trump: THE REMATCH
That’s if the world survives long enough for there to be historians, looking back
If GPT5 is as good as OpenAI claim, it would almost certainly make a better president than either of them. In fact GPT2 might do OK in comparison. Or a ZX Spectrum. Or a cucumber
That video of Biden talking about Mitterrand from Germany is pretty scary really.
It is. He’s not fit for office now, let alone in 2 or 4 years
Arguably even scarier is the number of dems or lefties or whatever who will try and dismiss this evidence, even now - oh he stammers, oh he’s just forgetful, oh he’s just a bit of a rambler
No he is actively senile and in terrible shape and it’s swiftly getting worse and someone needs to lead him off the stage
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
Received wisdom is that "Harry" is the original vernacular form of the forename, in contrast to the Latinate "Henry". It seems that the rare 15th-century official documents in English rather than Latin gave the king's name as Harry, not Henry.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
I think this is why most people fail to give up drinking and also eating too much. It's so boring.
It. Is. So. Boring
I want to go to sleep even tho I’m not remotely tired
This is a big thing. When Vesuvius erupted in 76AD, a library containing hundreds of scrolls was destroyed, and the scrolls carbonised. Some have been successfully opened, but this is a destructive process that often fails. The new prize uses very precise non-destructive 3D scanning of a scroll, and awards people who can find text in the resultant data.
Late last year, it was announced that a couple of people had uncovered a few letters in part of the scroll. Using this data, a team has found entire columns of text.
That's wonderful news, and a tribute to the power of financial incentives.
There's quite a history of innovation arising from prizes. I take it you know the story of Longitude?
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
The crazy thing is that Sir Keir could be radical, by saying he’d pretty much reverse Brexit or at least restore FOM. That’s what he was agitating to do between 2016 & 2020, yet now he’s on the brink of power, with Brexit less popular than ever and non EU immigration through the roof, he won’t hear of it.
There’s a scenario where newly elected Keir goes into the telephone box and emerges, emboldened and radical, ready to push through the widescale changes needed to rescue our country from its current Tory-inflicted malaise.
Then there’s the Blair first-term scenario where PM Keir is frightened of his own shadow and determinedly sticks to whatever ‘trap’ Tory spending plans Sunak has left him, and we have to endure another four to five years of nothing working and nothing being resolved.
Placing the odds as 20% the former and 80% the latter is starting to feel optimistic.
I think the most plausible scenario is something else - Starmer's Labour are a bit more radical than they campaign as, but go for the low-hanging fruit or emergencies in terms of improving the country the Tories have missed, either for ideological, party management reasons or because they're too busy chasing and arguing about their own delusions.
One reason Reeves is perhaps being so reluctant to make commitments now is that most departments are going to have a solid demand for some crisis spending to get them vaguely back on track after 14 years of mismanagement. So best to make sure you do have the money to avert those crises and bring about some calm.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Apart from the last sentence (I don't have Trump as fav) I totally agree with this. Biden has run a competent administration, and still is, but it's questionable whether he could get through another term. With Donald Trump the question is more whether America could get through another term.
I think it's quite tight but I'd make Trump 55-45 in a head-to-head with Biden at the moment. That's including the risk of Trump falling to some legal problem.
I wouldn't take polls at this stage as at all indicative predictions. Far too much has still to happen, from third party candidates entering (or withdrawing from, or being sidelined from) the campaign, to international events, to full-on red-on-blue campaigning, to Trump's court cases, to who knows what else.
Trump is a better campaigner than Biden. He also repels people. Can he inspire more people to back him than to stop him*? Yes, against Biden-Harris, I think he can.
* In the right places; obviously he doesn't need an actual national plurality to win.
Surely polls (as a snapshot) are all we have at this moment in the electoral cycle both in the US and the UK.
I am not sure Trump is a better campaigner (both as we write are poor). Biden out campaigned Trump in 2020.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
Was the Kaiser not the first monarch of a united Germany (I forget, it could have been his father)? So there's little historical precedent, and what there is isn't ideal.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
Yes but that’s just false consciousness. Its not what they REALLY think and I know this because I am widely traveled and I’ve had more sex than you and I own an exquisite vintage Jean Paul Gautier waistcoat
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
Was the Kaiser not the first monarch of a united Germany (I forget, it could have been his father)? So there's little historical precedent, and what there is isn't ideal.
No, he was the third (they were all emperor in 1888, IIRC); the first was his grandfather.
But while the Imperial German monarchy was new, don't forget that the lesser German kingdoms retained their own royal families through to 1918 and that all, including the Hohenzollerns, had roots going way back into the Middle Ages. Monarchy as a German institution was deeply embedded in its political and national culture.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
Nations don't operate the dignified bits of their constitution in a vacuum. If England (I accept other bits of the UK have different histories) had had a dignified and working head of state system which could date back to 900CE and wasn't a monarchy we would probably not want to bring in some randomers and call them the king/queen. But as it happens we have what we have, and its continuities are remarkable, matched in many ways in the west only by the papacy - another thing it is a good idea not to mess with.
It doesn't matter a bit what the Germans think. If they still had the HRE they would probably want to keep it (Prussian expansionism has had its downside). Their history is different.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
Was the Kaiser not the first monarch of a united Germany (I forget, it could have been his father)? So there's little historical precedent, and what there is isn't ideal.
Which was mostly part of the Holy Roman Empire. The King's symbol was the single-headed eagle, which is the symbol of Germany today, whereas the Emporer's symbol was the double-headed eagle.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
Was the Kaiser not the first monarch of a united Germany (I forget, it could have been his father)? So there's little historical precedent, and what there is isn't ideal.
Which was mostly part of the Holy Roman Empire. The King's symbol was the single-headed eagle, which is the symbol of Germany today, whereas the Emporer's symbol was the double-headed eagle.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
Whereas he would not piss on you if you were on fire and dying of cancer in front of him, he would just be wanting you towed away.I will save my sympathy for real people.
Of course he has no idea who I am. But when I was a teenager I received some financial help from the Prince's Trust and it really helped to broaden my horizons and I am grateful to the King for his role in setting up that organisation, which has helped many thousands of young people over the years.
Still a mere pittance compared to what he has robbed from the country. A parasite.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
Whereas he would not piss on you if you were on fire and dying of cancer in front of him, he would just be wanting you towed away.I will save my sympathy for real people.
Been at the metal polish again Malc?
Unliek some i am happy to post my honest opinions, no bowing and scraping to some inbred clown for me. Even my best metal stuff could not polish that turd.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
Tenerife. TENERIFE
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
That is very poor taste, not everybody gets free holidays or wants to go to the places you do. I have not been but it is extremely popular and reasonable flight time.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
Tenerife. TENERIFE
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
That is very poor taste, not everybody gets free holidays or wants to go to the places you do. I have not been but it is extremely popular and reasonable flight time.
I think that we have clear evidence that travel narrows the mind, at least for one PB'er.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
The first poll is a Republic commissioned poll which can largely be ignored.
Ipsos last year had 66% for keeping the monarchy and just 25% for a republic
Labour is going to be swept into power on the back of a widespread “nothing is working any more” sentiment, without having a single brave bold or radical idea or plan to improve anything.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
On the bright side its not the lib dems being swept into power
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
In what way strange? Seems to be expected doesn't it? Monarchies are going to tend to be stable because monarchies usually disappear as a result of some instability.
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
Where are these stable wealthy democracies, that are monarchies, that want to get rid of their monarchies?
I know you are sometimes capable of reading English - try again.
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024 Which would you prefer Monarchy 45% Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023) For monarchy 8% Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
The first poll is a Republic commissioned poll which can largely be ignored.
Ipsos last year had 66% for keeping the monarchy and just 25% for a republic
Comments
The election of Hitler does not negate the concept of elections. Every other Chancellor was removable - many at a great speed. How do I remove the King?
You might want to be subject to him, I don't.
Ultimately, that's why Charles is where he is. Not because - as the assertion at the start of this sub-thread - someone's x-gt-grandfather was a better murderer than someone else's but because parliament awarded the crown to George I and his descendants. If it wanted to change that, it could. Indeed, it did. Technically, Edward VIII couldn't abdicate; it was parliament passing an Act which handed the crown to George VI.
Some days it feels like an arms race of Alzheimer's as to which of them can appear the most cognitively deficient
And this isn't just Trump's normal batshit rambling nonsense, he seems to be seriously mistaken and confused, at times
However looking at that clip today I'd say Biden is further down the line of decline mentally, and definitely further down the line, physically. Biden looks like he could keel over and die any second; Trump doesn't, he still has some freaky Qi going on
It really would be best if they both REDACTED and two new candidates miraculously emerged
“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.” See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1754887673087451250
PS: Not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTLmyjr0HEo
(But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that these days people are delighted to find the khazi actually open and working.)
1688 slightly changed the whole top murderer and his descendants thing.
(Though someone really ought to inform the crawling Witchell tendency.)
You could look at countries that have chosen to restore the monarchy, but there aren't many examples of these either over the last couple of hundred years.
In stable wealthy democracies that aren't monarchies there tends to be very little support for (re-)introducing a monarchy. There tends to be more support in stable wealthy democracies that are monarchies for getting rid of them. Make of it what you will.
That’s our sad future, isn’t it?
We can remove our PMs swiftly, as their governments actually decide our laws, taxes, spending, whether we go to war etc.
The greatest benefit of our monarchy as well as the wonderful tradition and pageantry is they are not party politicians, just ceremonial heads of state
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DCXTimqwzU&t=180s
Ultimately it's up to each person where they want to go if indeed they want to go anywhere at all!
It is, I think, uncontroversial to say that support for a republic in the UK is, in percentage terms, higher than support for restoring the monarchy in the US. That's the point being made. Nothing more.
He could probably nationalise a few things too, as he said he would, and he’s ruled that out too despite it being quite popular I’d guess
However, those who are suffering from dementia manage best in a world of familiarity and as Trump's campaign centres on him saying the same things again and again - things he believes are true, and which his supporters want to be true, whether or not they are true - that's going to mask the extent of his decline. And Biden is not the man to catch him out.
It's absurd that in a country of maybe 180 million or more people qualified for the office (i'm guessing but it'll be thereabouts), these are the two to choose from.
Then there’s the Blair first-term scenario where PM Keir is frightened of his own shadow and determinedly sticks to whatever ‘trap’ Tory spending plans Sunak has left him, and we have to endure another four to five years of nothing working and nothing being resolved.
Placing the odds as 20% the former and 80% the latter is starting to feel optimistic.
The Tories need a good shellacking, so that they can reset properly. The Country however needs a decent Opposition, and it seems most unlikely one will be available.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00346-8
And it's about senses ans pleasure...
This is a big thing. When Vesuvius erupted in 76AD, a library containing hundreds of scrolls was destroyed, and the scrolls carbonised. Some have been successfully opened, but this is a destructive process that often fails. The new prize uses very precise non-destructive 3D scanning of a scroll, and awards people who can find text in the resultant data.
Late last year, it was announced that a couple of people had uncovered a few letters in part of the scroll. Using this data, a team has found entire columns of text.
We had to choose between Johnson and Corbyn. Then 'we' had a choice of Truss/Mordaunt/Sunak.
The contestants for the forthcoming contest have a very low bar to clear.
That’s if the world survives long enough for there to be historians, looking back
If GPT5 is as good as OpenAI claim, it would almost certainly make a better president than either of them. In fact GPT2 might do OK in comparison. Or a ZX Spectrum. Or a cucumber
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-rishi-sunak-general-election-keir-starmer-12593360
Trump is a better campaigner than Biden. He also repels people. Can he inspire more people to back him than to stop him*? Yes, against Biden-Harris, I think he can.
* In the right places; obviously he doesn't need an actual national plurality to win.
NEW THREAD
Arguably even scarier is the number of dems or lefties or whatever who will try and dismiss this evidence, even now - oh he stammers, oh he’s just forgetful, oh he’s just a bit of a rambler
No he is actively senile and in terrible shape and it’s swiftly getting worse and someone needs to lead him off the stage
Eg to choose the monarchy and republic that I know best:
The latest UK monarchy poll from yougov 15th - 16th January 2024
Which would you prefer
Monarchy 45%
Elected head of state 31%
Last German survey I can find (March 2023)
For monarchy 8%
Against monarchy 89%
That's almost 3 times as many in the state with wanting rid, as those in the republic wanting to get a monarch.
Monarchies just aren't that popular, if you compare similar wealthy stable democracies - even compared to a country that is painfully aware of having the worst republican government in history
I want to go to sleep even tho I’m not remotely tired
There's quite a history of innovation arising from prizes. I take it you know the story of Longitude?
One reason Reeves is perhaps being so reluctant to make commitments now is that most departments are going to have a solid demand for some crisis spending to get them vaguely back on track after 14 years of mismanagement. So best to make sure you do have the money to avert those crises and bring about some calm.
I am not sure Trump is a better campaigner (both as we write are poor). Biden out campaigned Trump in 2020.
But while the Imperial German monarchy was new, don't forget that the lesser German kingdoms retained their own royal families through to 1918 and that all, including the Hohenzollerns, had roots going way back into the Middle Ages. Monarchy as a German institution was deeply embedded in its political and national culture.
It doesn't matter a bit what the Germans think. If they still had the HRE they would probably want to keep it (Prussian expansionism has had its downside). Their history is different.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
Which was mostly part of the Holy Roman Empire. The King's symbol was the single-headed eagle, which is the symbol of Germany today, whereas the Emporer's symbol was the double-headed eagle.
https://dentistry.co.uk/2016/01/06/english-have-better-teeth-than-americans/
Of course that was before Brexit...
Ipsos last year had 66% for keeping the monarchy and just 25% for a republic
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-prefer-britain-remain-monarchy