'Letters sent every year by Teachers’ Pensions, which administers the scheme for the Department for Education (DfE), give spouses and civil partners of teachers who retired before January 2007 only 28 days to declare whether they remain single.
Those whose partners retired after that date remain entitled to the payments for life, regardless of their domestic circumstances. The system has left pensioners in their 80s and 90s at risk of losing their income unless they declare annually that they have not moved in with a new partner.'
And some have to prove annually they are still alive, even if *it's the same corpse that they have already been linked to.*
'Since then other retired teachers have reported that they have also been declared dead and cut off by the scheme, which is overseen by the DfE.
The DfE insists its vetting procedures are necessary to prevent fraud but according to legal experts, pursuing people over a disproved identity and withholding rightful payments may be in breach of data protection laws. [...]
It insisted that the system does not allow names to be decoupled once a potential match between a beneficiary and a death register entry has been identified, even if it has been disproved.'
Disgusting, incompetent, stupid, complacent and probably illegal.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
Boris is trending on TwiX, all with the same clip. If they weren't blue-ticked, I'd say it was a Kremlin-linked bot farm. Apparently the big Carlson/Putin revelation was that Boris and/or Britain sabotaged a peace deal that would end the SMO and save millions of lives.
Yes, Carlson and Putin discuss this several times, with pics of Boris, so it is definitely a meme Putin wants to deliver
There were plenty more revelations, the interview is genuinely interesting. I know this idea strains the minds of many on PB. but it is the case
Assumng the Boris Johnson mention is accurate, that's a nice bonus for him, I would've thought, with the electorate. Being disliked by Putin is no bad thing for a UK (ex-)politician.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
My take is Carlson was surprised by the initial history lecture, but he thought on his feet, and he realised that allowing Putin to ramble on was the right move - make him feel comfortable, but also look a tad unhinged, if knowledgeable
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
You can't even give us a link to these supposed good bits because of the way Twitter works.
Carlson failed to work within the limitations of the platform, and even motivated viewers will have switched off. The ramble should have been edited out, or moved to the end.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
Boris is trending on TwiX, all with the same clip. If they weren't blue-ticked, I'd say it was a Kremlin-linked bot farm. Apparently the big Carlson/Putin revelation was that Boris and/or Britain sabotaged a peace deal that would end the SMO and save millions of lives.
To be fair because this came from Putins lips millions in the uk wont believe this about Boris. The problem for Boris though is when he denies anything millions wont believe him either.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
Boris is trending on TwiX, all with the same clip. If they weren't blue-ticked, I'd say it was a Kremlin-linked bot farm. Apparently the big Carlson/Putin revelation was that Boris and/or Britain sabotaged a peace deal that would end the SMO and save millions of lives.
Yes, Carlson and Putin discuss this several times, with pics of Boris, so it is definitely a meme Putin wants to deliver
There were plenty more revelations, the interview is genuinely interesting. I know this idea strains the minds of many on PB. but it is the case
The role of Boris in the whole saga has produced some spectacular logical contortions from people who think he's in league with Putin.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
My take is Carlson was surprised by the initial history lecture, but he thought on his feet, and he realised that allowing Putin to ramble on was the right move - make him feel comfortable, but also look a tad unhinged, if knowledgeable
Then, when Putin was comfy, he was able to ask much more pressing questions
He would not have got anywhere by assailing Putin with endless aggressive questions about Ukraine from the off, you can't be Vintage Paxman when your subject is a Global Autocrat
You can't even give us a link to these supposed good bits because of the way Twitter works.
Carlson failed to work within the limitations of the platform, and even motivated viewers will have switched off. The ramble should have been edited out, or moved to the end.
Why don't you just watch it instead of asking me to spoon feed you? Why the fucketty fuck should I take time to do that? Are you six years old?
At one point Putin talks about Elon Musk in a way which implies, ever so slightly, that they are friends. "Elon is this, Elon is that"
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report from my own observations.
Well it's fallen flat to the extent he's got world leaders ranting about it - Trudeau to Boris- and it's got 172 million "views" on Twitter - and that's on his own channel, there will be tens of millions of other views second hand, as it percolates through the media. Yes yes of course only a tiny percentage will ever watch the whole boring thing (tho it gets less boring in the 2nd half); tens and maybe hundreds of millions will see snippets
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
Laughable that you would expect old biddies on a bus in gloucestershire to be discussing Putin.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
Boris is trending on TwiX, all with the same clip. If they weren't blue-ticked, I'd say it was a Kremlin-linked bot farm. Apparently the big Carlson/Putin revelation was that Boris and/or Britain sabotaged a peace deal that would end the SMO and save millions of lives.
Yes, Carlson and Putin discuss this several times, with pics of Boris, so it is definitely a meme Putin wants to deliver
There were plenty more revelations, the interview is genuinely interesting. I know this idea strains the minds of many on PB. but it is the case
I think it overstates Johnson's ability to sway the Green T-Shirt regime.
He definitely could have prevented the SMO and chose not to though. In January 2022, when it was in the post, he could have put a T45 into Odessa and 16 Air Assault into Kharkov. That would have given the Russians pause for thought and scrambled their invasion plans. Instead Ukraine got a crate of ATGMs and a card from Moonpig that said, "Good Luck! LOL!"
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report from my own observations.
Well it's fallen flat to the extent he's got world leaders ranting about it - Trudeau to Boris- and it's got 172 million "views" on Twitter - and that's on his own channel, there will be tens of millions of other views second hand, as it percolates through the media. Yes yes of course only a tiny percentage will ever watch the whole boring thing (tho it gets less boring in the 2nd half); tens and maybe hundreds of millions will see snippets
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
They will no doubt be delighted by such an endorsement.
Personally, I'm happy with the reactions I've encountered here and around my 'small corner'. They hardly suggest it's worth wasting a couple of hours watching and listening to a stunt which appears to have fallen a little flat (as defined).
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report from my own observations.
Well it's fallen flat to the extent he's got world leaders ranting about it - Trudeau to Boris- and it's got 172 million "views" on Twitter - and that's on his own channel, there will be tens of millions of other views second hand, as it percolates through the media. Yes yes of course only a tiny percentage will ever watch the whole boring thing (tho it gets less boring in the 2nd half); tens and maybe hundreds of millions will see snippets
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
Laughable that you would expect old biddies on a bus in gloucestershire to be discussing Putin.
But apparently this is certifiable proof, according to @Peter_the_Punter that the Carlson-Putin interview has "fallen flat"
No one is talking about it on the Shoppa Hoppa from Stroud
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton Exclusive: Whistleblower exposes Home Office's asylum system:
"I work in the Home Office deciding whether to grant people asylum, and I am terrified that one day one of my cases will end up on the news.
There has been no internal communication about the recent acid attack case. Nothing. Not even an email telling us that they are looking into how it could have been allowed to happen.
Instead we are bombarded with emails that celebrate things like “World Hijab Day’’ at the same time as I deal with cases of women claiming they cannot go back to Iran otherwise they will be forced into wearing these items.
Asylum seekers will be coached, often by legal representatives or through friends and family (some of whom may have been granted asylum in the past), to concoct a reason they might be persecuted in their home country. They “convert” to Christianity, often coming with evidence of recent baptisms, or say they are gay and take pictures in gay nightclubs to prove it (some of these photos look as though they are very uncomfortable being there).
In one instance a male claimed that he was gay, only to drop the assertion halfway through his asylum interview because he felt so disgusted by the idea.
In one interview the claimant insisted that he was being persecuted in his home country due to his political beliefs. I asked him to name the leader of his nation’s opposition party and he couldn’t answer. He asked for a break and came back ten minutes later knowing everything about the political situation.
The Home Office is hostile to those who speak up internally, unless their complaint is about diversity or discrimination or some other civil service obsession.
Home Office directives and pressure to clear the backlog of asylum cases has caused caseworkers to cut corners. The default is now to err on the side of accepting people. For example, we have been told to cut down the time it takes to conduct asylum interviews, which has led to confusion and a lack of clarity over some cases.
Even as someone who is sceptical of many applications, internal targets and incentives mean that I feel under huge pressure to accept people. It takes less than half an hour to accept a case, while it takes around a day to write up a report to reject someone (this is because you have to lay out the evidence as to why you rejected it for legal reasons, which is a timely process).
The top brass have told us to be on the lookout for applications (even citing a string of recent cases), that use the same wording, or similar stories, and are often submitted by people using the same immigration lawyer. We know that many law firms tell applicants to submit the same hokum that has been proven to work previously but we have not been told to stop granting asylum in these cases." 5:10 PM · Feb 9, 2024"
As someone entrusted with handling vulnerable people's personal information, it's fairly fucking vile for this civil servant to be spreading confidential details like this about, is it not? And the journalist involved should know better than to be amplifying the privacy breach without redacting any of the key details.
Will the ICO be taking action against the Telegraph?
Your arse , these criminals should be exposed and we should deport the fecking civil servant managers/government tossers along with the cheating lying illegals. This guy should get a medal.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report from my own observations.
Well it's fallen flat to the extent he's got world leaders ranting about it - Trudeau to Boris- and it's got 172 million "views" on Twitter - and that's on his own channel, there will be tens of millions of other views second hand, as it percolates through the media. Yes yes of course only a tiny percentage will ever watch the whole boring thing (tho it gets less boring in the 2nd half); tens and maybe hundreds of millions will see snippets
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
They will no doubt be delighted by such an endorsement.
Personally, I'm happy with the reactions I've encountered here and around my 'small corner'. They hardly suggest it's worth wasting a couple of hours watching and listening to a stunt which appears to have fallen a little flat (as defined).
You are intellectually incapable of defining what "NOT falling flat" might look like, so your statements are as meaningless as they are comical. "Well, they're not talking about it in the Lidl in Painswick"
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
The Ukrainian objective is to make the cost of the Russian occupation greater than Russia is prepared to pay so it chooses to leave, not to defeat the regime in Russia.
I would say they have a reasonable chance of doing that, but they need to be supported.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
Russians are used, from time immemorial, to despots and dysfunctional economies. Expecting a few shortages in the shops to bring Putin down is much the same as Chamberlain treating WW2 like a West Bromwich by-election and thinking that an economic blockade of Germany would bring Hitler down by itself (which he did so think). Populations will put up with a lot of hardship if they think it's not their government's fault and/or is necessary in a good cause and/or whatever the faults of this regime, an alternative might well be worse.
The Ukrainian objective is to make the cost of the Russian occupation greater than Russia is prepared to pay so it chooses to leave, not to defeat the regime in Russia.
I would say they have a reasonable chance of doing that, but they need to be supported.
On this analysis I would think the Russians have a better chance of prevailing. They won't retreat, have built up a war economy, have vast natural resources and willing buyers for their goods to support an indefinete conflict which also serves domestic political purposes. Whereas in Ukraine, the state is being underwritten entirely by the west against a backdrop of mounting political opposition within its main backer (the US)
The Russian economy has certainly held up so far. However they cannot sell all their gas to Europe and there is no way to replace that. Their oil needs to be sold at a discount. Hopefully these drone attacks on oil infrastructure are making a difference. Too many sanctions are being evaded but I'm sure they are still making life more difficult.
I am less optimistic than I was. The failure to provide more long range missiles and fighter jets seems lame and at the other end being unable to equip Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells when North Korea has given Russia a million rounds is pathetic. I'm no expert but there may still be a way to get the bill through Congress.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Ditto. In fact I don't think most people even knew it happened. Just asked my wife. Nope, not a clue.
Another one to add to the list. Not only have "Tres" and "Kamski" declared their indifference to this interview so has "KJH's wife"
A stunning blow to the Musk-Putin Axis
For someone who is supposed to have a massive IQ your lack of comprehension is astounding.
I never said she was indifferent to it. I said she didn't know it was happening. For all I know she might have been beside herself with excitement if she did.
The point I was making, which clearly went over that enormous IQ of yours (but which I stated in very plain English) was 'I don't think most people even knew it happened' which I believe is true. I suspect if you did a survey on the street of any British town the numbers who would have known it happened would be in the single digit percentages.
There is a difference between knowing something and being indifferent to it. Honestly, high IQ?
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
I'm not sure the reaction of "Tres" and "Kamski" is the metric we should use as to the impact of this interview?
Here is the ex prime minister of the UK ranting about ther interview
Who is more important? Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau, or "Tres" and "Kamski" off of PB?
Boris is trending on TwiX, all with the same clip. If they weren't blue-ticked, I'd say it was a Kremlin-linked bot farm. Apparently the big Carlson/Putin revelation was that Boris and/or Britain sabotaged a peace deal that would end the SMO and save millions of lives.
Yes, Carlson and Putin discuss this several times, with pics of Boris, so it is definitely a meme Putin wants to deliver
There were plenty more revelations, the interview is genuinely interesting. I know this idea strains the minds of many on PB. but it is the case
I think it overstates Johnson's ability to sway the Green T-Shirt regime.
He definitely could have prevented the SMO and chose not to though. In January 2022, when it was in the post, he could have put a T45 into Odessa and 16 Air Assault into Kharkov. That would have given the Russians pause for thought and scrambled their invasion plans. Instead Ukraine got a crate of ATGMs and a card from Moonpig that said, "Good Luck! LOL!"
Looks like one card from Moonpig, and the wheels come off The Glorious 3 Day War.
Tory Treasurer (and donor) Stuart Marks elevated to House of Lords by Rishi Sunak. 🔹10 TORY TREASURERS have been made Lords since 2010 🔹Since 2014 all of them (apart from Marks at c£170k) have donated more than £3 million to the party. https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1756225792969781633
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I am not entirely sure I would grace this with the verb "think". Its irrational on so many levels.
@AlsoLei good to have friends with diverse political perspectives... I would say this is the effect of social media and the decline of grand narratives that existed until the mid 2010's. Who is to say that 'we' are right and they are wrong? In a democracy all views are given equal weight. What is 'irrationality' anyway? It seems to me like a disproven concept from another era. What is more 'irrational' than centrist politicians 'taking a break from social distancing' to join in with a mass 'anti-racism' protest, in the middle of a pandemic, where it is against the law to leave your house? What you have is a desperate search for order and meaning amongst chaos, it expresses itself in a variety of ways that seem (to our 1990's shaped minds) absurd.
There is no rationality in the west anymore. Thats why we are in decline. We just move from chaos to failed feel good scheme and back to chaos. Still at least its entertaining.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
I found the prattling despot more impressive than I'd expected. First thing that struck me was how relaxed and confident he seemed. There was definitely a human being with a brain sitting there. Not something we'd been primed to look for. Certainly not in the same league of ghastliness as Netanyahu which as a starting point seemed like a reasonable comparison.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
I found the prattling despot more impressive than I'd expected. First thing that struck me was how relaxed and confident he seemed. There was definitely a human being with a brain sitting there. Not something we'd been primed to look for. Certainly not in the same league of ghastliness as Netanyahu which as a starting point seemed like a reasonable comparison.
Blaming Poland for the second world war. Come on you're trolling now?
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
I found the prattling despot more impressive than I'd expected. First thing that struck me was how relaxed and confident he seemed. There was definitely a human being with a brain sitting there. Not something we'd been primed to look for. Certainly not in the same league of ghastliness as Netanyahu which as a starting point seemed like a reasonable comparison.
Yes, he comes across as somewhat obsessive, but not mad. A pretty smart guy relatively on top of his brief. And apparently not ill, let alone "dying"
Certainly much much lucid and formidable than Trump or Biden, Tragically
However I part ways with you on Vlad's ghastliness. Putin is definitelty ghastly: cold, amoral and happy to slaughter entire cities
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
I found the prattling despot more impressive than I'd expected. First thing that struck me was how relaxed and confident he seemed. There was definitely a human being with a brain sitting there. Not something we'd been primed to look for. Certainly not in the same league of ghastliness as Netanyahu which as a starting point seemed like a reasonable comparison.
Yes, he comes across as somewhat obsessive, but not mad. A pretty smart guy relatively on top of his brief. And apparently not ill, let alone "dying"
Certainly much much lucid and formidable than Trump or Biden, Tragically
However I part ways with you on Vlad's ghastliness. Putin is definitelty ghastly: cold, amoral and happy to slaughter entire cities
Yes a dangerous opponent indeed. Which is why we need better leaders in the west.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
I think Hillary would have ended up being a better President than Obama.
Completely off topic but for anyone who fancies rock nostalgia (AC/DC, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Who, Led Zeppelin, etc hits) I can highly recommend 'The Classic Rock Show'. They are fantastic musicians.
The cost is just over £100 for 2. I am paying over £1000 to see Santana and Eric Clapton later in the year and some of these tributes I think are better than the originals. Others to go for are 'Rumours of Fleetwood Mac" (from the same stable) and the "Illegal Eagles".
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
You could make a very good case that neither were as qualified as McCain, and he still lost.
And the corpse of my ten years' dead tomcat is better qualified than Trump, and he still won.
It's not just about who would be 'most qualified.' The most qualified person is the one who is best placed to win.
(Arguably this holds good in other fields as well. Amanda Spielman is totally unqualified for any post in education. She has done them all very badly and with genuinely calamitous results. I would have done them a thousand times better, and any other teacher, or even teaching assistant, at least a hundred times better. But that doesn't count when things are done on a 'who you know' basis.)
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
You could make a very good case that neither were as qualified as McCain, and he still lost.
And the corpse of my ten years' dead tomcat is better qualified than Trump, and he still won.
It's not just about who would be 'most qualified.' The most qualified person is the one who is best placed to win.
According to that logic, you think that Trump is currently the most qualified to be president.
Millions of habitual Tory voters/supporters value competence, statesmanship, compromise and liberal values along with sound finance, effective defence, honesty and progress towards the unattainable goal of equality of opportunity (but not equality of outcomes).
Only two parties can govern the UK. Neither score stellar marks under this picture of moderate Toryism. But Labour currently score much higher than the Tories. Rod Stewart is right.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
I think Hillary would have ended up being a better President than Obama.
Probably a very unpopular opinion.
Obama was not a great president.
Hilary Clinton would not have been a great president.
Few presidents are, in fact, any good. In some fairly important respects Biden has been better than average.
And that's OK, because actually, you know what? It's a bloody difficult job. Hardest gig in the world in many respects.
But there is no president, not Hoover, not Buchanan, not Harrison, who has been quite so epically awful as Trump was. For a start, none of them tried to mount a coup to stay in office.*
And that's the real puzzle. What is it about the Republicans that they want to elect a loser, serial criminal, self-confessed predatory sex pest and senile near-octogenarian as President?
Only one of those so far as is known applies to Biden...
*in the case of Harrison, of course, that question didn't really arise.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
I found the prattling despot more impressive than I'd expected. First thing that struck me was how relaxed and confident he seemed. There was definitely a human being with a brain sitting there. Not something we'd been primed to look for. Certainly not in the same league of ghastliness as Netanyahu which as a starting point seemed like a reasonable comparison.
Yes, he comes across as somewhat obsessive, but not mad. A pretty smart guy relatively on top of his brief. And apparently not ill, let alone "dying"
Certainly much much lucid and formidable than Trump or Biden, Tragically
However I part ways with you on Vlad's ghastliness. Putin is definitelty ghastly: cold, amoral and happy to slaughter entire cities
Yes a dangerous opponent indeed. Which is why we need better leaders in the west.
It is certainly depressing to be shown that the leader of Russia is ten times sharper and smarter than either of the candidates for POTUS this year. I imagine Xi Jinping would also make Biden and Trump look like the mad/sad old men they are
What a pickle we are in
Is there an impressive western leader? I'd probably pick Macron as the most obviously intelligent and astute, but OTOH he is making quite a hash of things in France, the economy is in trouble, he lost the parliamentary elections, and he will likely (as things stand) be succeeded by Marine Le Pen. That cannot be seen as a wonderful legacy
Bukele of El Salvador? Perhaps we should make HIM leader of the Free World
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
You could make a very good case that neither were as qualified as McCain, and he still lost.
And the corpse of my ten years' dead tomcat is better qualified than Trump, and he still won.
It's not just about who would be 'most qualified.' The most qualified person is the one who is best placed to win.
According to that logic, you think that Trump is currently the most qualified to be president.
No - because the one based placed to win, as you can see in every poll, is Nikki Haley. She would walk this. That makes her the most qualified. But she can't get past the Republicans.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
It was a stunt, but appears to have fallen flat.
Do please define what you mean by "falling flat"
And do please define what "success", and "not falling flat", in this context, might have looked like?
I was using the phrase in its normal, everyday sense rather than any special technical or colloquial meaning. If it assists, here is Webster's definition, which I think most of us would recognise and find workable:
'Fallen flat' phrase Definition of fallen flat Past participle of fall flat 1. As in failed To be unsuccessful. 'Her performance fell flat despite weeks of rehearsing.'
Can't help you so much with the second part of your query because success, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I did note however the BBC's brief demolition of Putin's History of Russia, the appearance of the article some way down the news agenda, the generally dismissive attitude of PB's cognoscenti, and the total absence of mentions on the bus between Cheltenham to Winchcombe yesterday.
Naturally your own perceptions will be different and the subscribers to the Flintknappers Gazette may be in a state of awe and wonder at what they saw and heard, but I can only report from my own observations.
Well it's fallen flat to the extent he's got world leaders ranting about it - Trudeau to Boris- and it's got 172 million "views" on Twitter - and that's on his own channel, there will be tens of millions of other views second hand, as it percolates through the media. Yes yes of course only a tiny percentage will ever watch the whole boring thing (tho it gets less boring in the 2nd half); tens and maybe hundreds of millions will see snippets
And it has been headline news in all papers and websites in the last 36 hours, worldwide
The New York Times is no friend of Tucker C (or Vlad P) but this is their verdict:
"Tucker Carlson Regains the Bullhorn, at Least Temporarily
Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled."
He may well have "fallen flat" in your small corner of Glos, I suspect Tucker Carlson himself is feeling pretty triumphant. I am not sure Vladimir will be so chuffed tho. What has the Russian leader actually gained from this? He's made Tucker Carlson globally famous, and probably pleased Elon Musk, is that it? Was that his aim?
They will no doubt be delighted by such an endorsement.
Personally, I'm happy with the reactions I've encountered here and around my 'small corner'. They hardly suggest it's worth wasting a couple of hours watching and listening to a stunt which appears to have fallen a little flat (as defined).
You are intellectually incapable of defining what "NOT falling flat" might look like, so your statements are as meaningless as they are comical. "Well, they're not talking about it in the Lidl in Painswick"
From the way it was trailed I would have expected it to be the sole topic of conversation from Painswick to Patagonia for months on end. I suppose by that yardstick it could hardly have failed to disappoint.
Bet the readers of The Flintknappers Gazette lapped it up though.
And that's the real puzzle. What is it about the Republicans that they want to elect a loser, serial criminal, self-confessed predatory sex pest and senile near-octogenarian as President?
It's not a puzzle at all
They want Trump cos they think he will win.
Same reason the Brexiteers picked BoZo despite knowing what a **** he is.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
You could make a very good case that neither were as qualified as McCain, and he still lost.
And the corpse of my ten years' dead tomcat is better qualified than Trump, and he still won.
It's not just about who would be 'most qualified.' The most qualified person is the one who is best placed to win.
According to that logic, you think that Trump is currently the most qualified to be president.
No - because the one based placed to win, as you can see in every poll, is Nikki Haley. She would walk this. That makes her the most qualified. But she can't get past the Republicans.
If she can't win then she can't be the best placed to win by your own logic.
In any case, Clinton polled better against McCain than Obama did.
And that's the real puzzle. What is it about the Republicans that they want to elect a loser, serial criminal, self-confessed predatory sex pest and senile near-octogenarian as President?
It's not a puzzle at all
They want Trump cos they think he will win.
Same reason the Brexiteers picked BoZo despite knowing what a **** he is.
Boris was the best candidate to win in 2019.
Trump is probably less likely to beat Biden than just about any GOP Senator or Governor.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As far as I can work out it is 5% of the total US military budget. So £48 billion of £877 billion ish. It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'. There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country. I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
Forget the cash and the arms support, important though those are, the bottom line for me is the level of determination amongst the Ukraine population to resist, even into a period were it to happen where they are under the Russian control.
From the few Ukrainians I have met - admittedly refugees and a few promoting their cause on cultural tours - they seem vehemently determined. 'Britain in the Blitz' levels of determination. Afghan Taliban levels of determination.
Fair enough, I don't disagree. But my point about the weakeness of this discussion on PB, is that I am interested in the strategy for how the war in Ukraine gets resolved, and then the strategy for the long war with Russia, how it is won or avoided. With some exceptions, all I am hearing back is propoganda and wishful thinking; and then attempts to close down the discussion by defining any views that depart from the 'consensus' as 'pro Putin' or 'appeasement', which just gets tiring.
Re the 'debate', I think it exists in 2 guises. There's the rhetorical sinew-stiffening stuff. This says the war is a clear right/wrong matter and therefore as long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should continue to support them. End of. No ifs or buts. This is simplistic (since there are ifs and buts, obviously there are) however I don't mind it because I agree about the right/wrong and at present this IS the policy. It doesn't make for a great discussion but it has a point. It's the 'right' thing to say, which I mean in a positive way. Not right as in "PC" or "virtue signalling", just right as in right.
The other 'debate' is about trying to predict how the war will actually pan out, eg opining on how we ought to react to various possible developments. Here people will say different things depending on their worldview and thought processes (eg I'll stress the potential impact of GOP/MAGA ascendency), and so one gets a more 'grainy' discourse, which people should be able to contribute pessimistically to without being called names. Maybe Ukraine won't get their territory back, they're not bound to just because they're the good guys. This sort of chat is definitely more interesting. But it's also pointless because nobody has much of a clue how things will unfold.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
It is a sorry lineup at the moment. After years of decline.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
Nobody talked about who was most "qualified" until Hillary, and it didn't help her because the voters correctly read it as "entitled".
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Biden in 2008 is perhaps an interesting 'what-if' I think any standard Dem would win that year.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
I think Hillary would have ended up being a better President than Obama.
Probably a very unpopular opinion.
He made her Secretary of State and she did an awful job of that so it's not obvious why she'd have been better at being president.
One bad habit Dems have is that they'll have the primary and their voters will pick the right person and then the winner will bring in the loser in the name of party unity and implement all their bad ideas. Elizabeth Warren's campaign completely bombed but Biden's administration is full of her people.
He remains the worst person in living memory to get the job.
We know from the Washington Post that it was Boris Johnson, alone among Western leaders, who overrode the consensus and shipped significant levels of weapons to Ukraine before the full-scale invasion.
Which other potential British PM would have done the same? Presumably you would have preferred us to follow the European consensus that it was hopeless?
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
It is a sorry lineup at the moment. After years of decline.
Tragically, it might be Donald Tusk.
A lightweight posturer.
Perhaps the leaders of Sweden and Finland - whoever they are.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Maybe in a while.
But surely, for now, we have to travel to Cardiff to see the greatest of them all.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
Get out of your bubble - I not heard anyone mention it once in the real word.
Even here on PB it was only mentioned as a possible reason for Leon's absence - and we've spent more time on Leon's reaction to it than the interview itself. An interview even less important than why one sad old bitter non-entity spouts such a lot of crap!
It's like I've got a permanent Airbnb rental in your brain, it's kinda flattering
Do you ever wonder WHY you obsess about me?
You're an interesting case. It seems to be so important to your self-image that you lead an interesting and enviable life, but you seem to spend most of your free time arguing about politics with boring idiots that you despise on an internet forum. Not sure how you cope with the cognitive dissonance but lots of alcohol might help.
You actually started this debate about Carlson this morning - by mentioning me. I wasn't even here, you weren't responding to any remark of mine, yet you mention me angrily. It's.... weird
FWIW I certainly do not lead an interesting life at the moment, it is fucking dull. I wake up, work, work, work, sit in the sun, work, faff about on here, maybe have a drink (or not) down Bassac Lane, watch TV, sleep, repeat
As I've said, it is a quasi monastic regime I have imposed on myself for the sake of the creative work (so I can't whine, tho I do), and it succeeds on its own terms, the work is good. But I'll be bloody glad when it is over. End Feb or mid March, God willing
Think you're confusing me with RCS100? You're usually too lazy to bother actually reading what you reply to. It's probably why you are usually so wrong
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
This might not make me popular (not that this has ever stopped me before) but Bukele of El Salvador really does have some mighty charisma
@williamglenn linked to his speech after his phenomenal victory. It is electrifying - partly because of the setting, the huge jubilant crowds, the enormous victory, the palpable relief of an entire nation saved from violent anarchy. BUT he also has IT, the gift, the charisma
You can see how it could easily tip over into demagoguery, and then Fascism, but for now he appears to be a democrat, and extremely good at it, albeit ruthless (but he had no choice, and it is the will of the people - as he constantly says)
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
I think Bidens record as President is superb, maybe best of my lifetime.
But what Macron has done is really impressive. To set up your own party and dominate French politics from the centre is pretty unique.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
This might not make me popular (not that this has ever stopped me before) but Bukele of El Salvador really does have some mighty charisma
@williamglenn linked to his speech after his phenomenal victory. It is electrifying - partly because of the setting, the huge jubilant crowds, the enormous victory, the palpable relief of an entire nation saved from violent anarchy. BUT he also has IT, the gift, the charisma
You can see how it could easily tip over into demagoguery, and then Fascism, but for now he appears to be a democrat, and extremely good at it, albeit ruthless (but he had no choice, and it is the will of the people - as he constantly says)
He is already describing himself as 'philosopher king' on Twitter
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
Other way round for me.
Democracy should be about accurately representing the will of the people. There are arguments to be made about liberalism and the dangers of the tyranny of the majority, i.e. we shouldn't bring back hanging just because 51% of people approve of it.
But in a democratic system, if a policy is overwhelmingly unpopular, a politician - as a representative of the people - shouldn't be trying to force it through.
At best, we can get rid of them at the next election and vote in someone more aligned to the majority view. At worst, our democratic institutions aren't enough to act as a check on this. For example, the way FPTP delivers majorities on a minority of votes, or the enormous structural democratic deficit at the heart of the EU.
TL;DR. Democracy should be about representing the will of the people. It should not be about politicians pursuing their pet projects. Unless you're arguing that we don't know what's good for us, in which case we might as well have done with it and appoint a dictator.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
I think Bidens record as President is superb, maybe best of my lifetime.
But what Macron has done is really impressive. To set up your own party and dominate French politics from the centre is pretty unique.
Biden has been a pretty good domestic president. It is increasingly difficult to ignore all the foreign policy disasters on his watch, however
And of course he has now been revealed as undeniably demented, a man who cannot put three sentences together, a man who thinks he recently had tea with Queen Victoria, and he confuses Canada with Neptune
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
In part, the job is just too difficult, and it overwhelms everyone who tries. Maybe not at first, but in time.
Story told of Manuel Fraga, who was a moderniser under Franco, then a reactionary dinosaur in the democratic era.
"He's so clever, the Spanish State fits inside his brain" people said. And so it did, when it was a dictatorship. But a democracy is so much more complex, everyone wanting different contradictory things, all those damn individuals. Fraga's Spain ended up too small, because it was constrained by the size of his (considerable) mind.
Running a dictatorship, where the state gets to put people in one of a smallish number of boxes, is much easier.
Even if we don't have disturbing fetishes, we all crave enough order to get things we want done. The trouble with the strongman model is that, once they've done the easy bits, once they have to make choices to please some and displease others, it tends to go a bit Pete Tong, and they can only get consent by force and lying.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Meloni is the only western leader of the above with a clear poll lead still but for competence and charisma probably Macron for all his faults
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
It is a sorry lineup at the moment. After years of decline.
Tragically, it might be Donald Tusk.
A lightweight posturer.
Perhaps the leaders of Sweden and Finland - whoever they are.
I did say "tragically". Posturer, yes. I'm not sure he's a lightweight.
Finnish PM is PB favourite Sanna Marin.
Can't remember the Swedish PM but he's only been in a couple of years. The previous PM started the NATO process. Don't know what else they've done since.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
This might not make me popular (not that this has ever stopped me before) but Bukele of El Salvador really does have some mighty charisma
@williamglenn linked to his speech after his phenomenal victory. It is electrifying - partly because of the setting, the huge jubilant crowds, the enormous victory, the palpable relief of an entire nation saved from violent anarchy. BUT he also has IT, the gift, the charisma
You can see how it could easily tip over into demagoguery, and then Fascism, but for now he appears to be a democrat, and extremely good at it, albeit ruthless (but he had no choice, and it is the will of the people - as he constantly says)
He is already describing himself as 'philosopher king' on Twitter
I really hope he doesn't descend into Fascism. Watching that crowd adoring him I got a sense of what it might have been like to see Mussolini or Hitler in their early successful years, with huge crowds chanting your name. It must be intoxicating, for him AND them
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
I think Bidens record as President is superb, maybe best of my lifetime.
But what Macron has done is really impressive. To set up your own party and dominate French politics from the centre is pretty unique.
Macron, and to a lesser extent, Biden are the only current leaders thinking strategically. Whether it's the right strategy is up for debate I suppose.
Returning to Leon's question the leaders in the autocratic East are much worse again. Xi makes mistake after mistake; Putin is a disaster for Russia. It's a mistake to confuse control of the polity for good government.
Completely off topic but for anyone who fancies rock nostalgia (AC/DC, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Who, Led Zeppelin, etc hits) I can highly recommend 'The Classic Rock Show'. They are fantastic musicians.
The cost is just over £100 for 2. I am paying over £1000 to see Santana and Eric Clapton later in the year and some of these tributes I think are better than the originals. Others to go for are 'Rumours of Fleetwood Mac" (from the same stable) and the "Illegal Eagles".
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Probably Drakeford, for his principled position on road safety. Sticking with an unpopular policy because it's the right thing to do is a sign of political leadership. Khan for the same reason, on ULEZ. It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
This might not make me popular (not that this has ever stopped me before) but Bukele of El Salvador really does have some mighty charisma
@williamglenn linked to his speech after his phenomenal victory. It is electrifying - partly because of the setting, the huge jubilant crowds, the enormous victory, the palpable relief of an entire nation saved from violent anarchy. BUT he also has IT, the gift, the charisma
You can see how it could easily tip over into demagoguery, and then Fascism, but for now he appears to be a democrat, and extremely good at it, albeit ruthless (but he had no choice, and it is the will of the people - as he constantly says)
He is already describing himself as 'philosopher king' on Twitter
I really hope he doesn't descend into Fascism. Watching that crowd adoring him I got a sense of what it might have been like to see Mussolini or Hitler in their early successful years, with huge crowds chanting your name. It must be intoxicating, for him AND them
He keeps insisting he is a democrat....
The one lesson that will surely be copied is that being genuinely tough on crime, as opposed to just posturing, a) works and b) is popular.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
The mood was for change in 2008, any Democrat would have won it, especially with the Crash in September as well.
Had Obama waited until 2016 he might have lost after 8 years of Hillary as she lost after 8 years of him
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
Maybe in a while.
But surely, for now, we have to travel to Cardiff to see the greatest of them all.
Just as long as we don't drive too fast.
His office is very very near where I live and yet I see more of my local MP Kevin Brennan.
Completely off topic but for anyone who fancies rock nostalgia (AC/DC, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Who, Led Zeppelin, etc hits) I can highly recommend 'The Classic Rock Show'. They are fantastic musicians.
The cost is just over £100 for 2. I am paying over £1000 to see Santana and Eric Clapton later in the year and some of these tributes I think are better than the originals. Others to go for are 'Rumours of Fleetwood Mac" (from the same stable) and the "Illegal Eagles".
If any western leader pompously prattled on about their warped view of history they wouldn’t be considered sharp.
It’s only warped in that it’s the standard Russian history taught to school kids.
Boris (to take a random example) is quite capable of prattling on in similar vein. Similarly for many US politicians.
Though probably for a couple of minutes rather than half an hour.
His views on the causes of ww2 should have been challenged.
Of course. Standard history taught in Russian schools in a parcel of lies, in a similar manner to the way US school kids were taught about the civil war back in the 1970s.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
The fact that he got the interview is less important than the fact that the interview was bad. It confirmed Putin as a rambling despot rather than spiritual leader of the conservative right and confirmed Carlson was more influencer than journalist.
Of course it’s newsworthy, a notorious American shock jock interviews a warmongering dictator who’s been threatening nuclear war, so we’re going to talk about it.
I think Putin really missed his chance. He could have spent 2 hours tickling all the MAGA erogenous zones and practically guaranteed the republicans stand in the way of future aid to Ukraine. Family values, climate hoax, anti woke, perhaps namecheck antifa, immigration, European socialised medicine, gun rights. He missed a long list of open goals.
Yes he did. That’s why I think it was clever of Carlson to let him ramble on about history at first. Putin kinda lost his way. He actually admits that about 40 minutes in - “this is not a normal interview.sorry”
Or Carlson just got lucky?
I've not watched this interview but my initial reaction was pretty similar to @TimS. However on reflection I suspect that this was a carefully considered move on the part of the Russians. Putin can do a 'culture warrior' thing but decided not to. It ties in to the point I made yesterday evening, that maybe it suits Russian strategic objectives that the west keep on pumping money in to Ukraine because it is ultimately working to their advantage as it destabilises and weakens the west. In a deeper sense the analysis is that the west is too weak, insecure, and culturally fragmented and could not therefore win a long war against Russia despite its overwhelming economic and military advantage. Hence the various 'history lessons'.
The war in Ukraine is rounding error on the West’s military budget. Nearly everything sent has been second hand and about to time expire.
For Russia, it is a financially staggering toll, with whole sectors of the economy partially shuttered.
The reason is that Russia is Mexico with a large pile of rusty stuff left over from the Cold War.
Putin didn’t do culture warrior because this was about him in his comfort zone - he wanted to explain his perfectly reasonable world view. Right from the beginning.
The reason it was a bit of a fail, was that his world view is actually a sad mishmash of fuckwit irredentism and fascism of the saloon bar variety.
As far as I can work out it is 5% of the total US military budget. So £48 billion of £877 billion ish. It also seems like the war has also prompted the modernisation of the Russian Military, new alliances, supply lines etc, to the point where it can actually fight, and is not a 'paper tiger'. There is also the issue of the war prompting all those who oppose Putin to quit the country. I am just putting these points out there. I don't know how this end but if Ukraine win and Russia get 'beaten back', as perhaps they will; it relies on a large amount of luck going our way, looking at the current situation there.
Forget the cash and the arms support, important though those are, the bottom line for me is the level of determination amongst the Ukraine population to resist, even into a period were it to happen where they are under the Russian control.
From the few Ukrainians I have met - admittedly refugees and a few promoting their cause on cultural tours - they seem vehemently determined. 'Britain in the Blitz' levels of determination. Afghan Taliban levels of determination.
Fair enough, I don't disagree. But my point about the weakeness of this discussion on PB, is that I am interested in the strategy for how the war in Ukraine gets resolved, and then the strategy for the long war with Russia, how it is won or avoided. With some exceptions, all I am hearing back is propoganda and wishful thinking; and then attempts to close down the discussion by defining any views that depart from the 'consensus' as 'pro Putin' or 'appeasement', which just gets tiring.
Re the 'debate', I think it exists in 2 guises. There's the rhetorical sinew-stiffening stuff. This says the war is a clear right/wrong matter and therefore as long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should continue to support them. End of. No ifs or buts. This is simplistic (since there are ifs and buts, obviously there are) however I don't mind it because I agree about the right/wrong and at present this IS the policy. It doesn't make for a great discussion but it has a point. It's the 'right' thing to say, which I mean in a positive way. Not right as in "PC" or "virtue signalling", just right as in right.
The other 'debate' is about trying to predict how the war will actually pan out, eg opining on how we ought to react to various possible developments. Here people will say different things depending on their worldview and thought processes (eg I'll stress the potential impact of GOP/MAGA ascendency), and so one gets a more 'grainy' discourse, which people should be able to contribute pessimistically to without being called names. Maybe Ukraine won't get their territory back, they're not bound to just because they're the good guys. This sort of chat is definitely more interesting. But it's also pointless because nobody has much of a clue how things will unfold.
Yes. Darkage is asking a good question but PB may not be the exact answer.
Real study of the progress and future of a complex war is hard. The first casualty is truth. For Ukraine, if you really want to work it out in detail start with reading up and finding out from: RUSI, King's College, Chatham House, The Economist, Prof Michael Clarke, The British Academy list of experts, and work outwards (these are just UK sources). It's a big job.
At least some updated stuff is around and being discussed.
Try following the devastating war in Sudan - almost entirely ignored in the UK, and as appalling or more than Gaza and Ukraine. BTW the Best source known to me is:
Scotland v France France are going to throw the ball around and this has the makings of a high scoring game... Scotland 20 France 30
England v Wales This is going to be a very tight game. England will try to outmuscle Wales but expect Wales to counterattack from deep. This will probably be a narrow England win 24-20 but chance of a Welsh upset.
Ireland v Italy Italy will be competitive for around 20 minutes but overall I expect another dominant game from Ireland. 40-15
Been gone for a bit - some news, I resigned from my job last Friday, after 5 years I needed a change and I'm taking up a VP of Data Science role at a fintech company once my gardening leave is over around July.
I am now, IMO, city adjacent which is a relief. Getting off the hamster wheel a for bit will be nice and I've got the next 6 months to spend with the family, which is great timing because baby number 2 will be here in a few weeks.
Two big elections coming up this year as well so will definitely be spending some time looking for the betting opportunities over the next few months!
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
I think Bidens record as President is superb, maybe best of my lifetime.
But what Macron has done is really impressive. To set up your own party and dominate French politics from the centre is pretty unique.
Biden has handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban, Putin was able to invade Ukraine on his watch, he has not been able to bring about peace in Gaza, US interest rates are still sky high and the US deficit is over half a billion dollars now as he spends more and more. Plus he has no real control over the level of migrants coming over the Mexican border.
He is certainly not superb, in fact he is probably the weakest Democratic President since Carter, however if he faces Trump again he may still win. Whereas if Haley was his opponent in November he would definitely be heading for the exit door
Been gone for a bit - some news, I resigned from my job last Friday, after 5 years I needed a change and I'm taking up a VP of Data Science role at a fintech company once my gardening leave is over around July.
I am now, IMO, city adjacent which is a relief. Getting off the hamster wheel a for bit will be nice and I've got the next 6 months to spend with the family, which is great timing because baby number 2 will be here in a few weeks.
Two big elections coming up this year as well so will definitely be spending some time looking for the betting opportunities over the next few months!
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
Nobody talked about who was most "qualified" until Hillary, and it didn't help her because the voters correctly read it as "entitled".
Hillary's problem in 2008 was the same as her problem two terms later against Trump. She and her team had not understood the electoral system so her campaign concentrated on piling up votes in safe states while Obama and Trump respectively mopped up delegates across the country. Fool me once, etc.
Completely off topic but for anyone who fancies rock nostalgia (AC/DC, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Who, Led Zeppelin, etc hits) I can highly recommend 'The Classic Rock Show'. They are fantastic musicians.
The cost is just over £100 for 2. I am paying over £1000 to see Santana and Eric Clapton later in the year and some of these tributes I think are better than the originals. Others to go for are 'Rumours of Fleetwood Mac" (from the same stable) and the "Illegal Eagles".
Been gone for a bit - some news, I resigned from my job last Friday, after 5 years I needed a change and I'm taking up a VP of Data Science role at a fintech company once my gardening leave is over around July.
I am now, IMO, city adjacent which is a relief. Getting off the hamster wheel a for bit will be nice and I've got the next 6 months to spend with the family, which is great timing because baby number 2 will be here in a few weeks.
Two big elections coming up this year as well so will definitely be spending some time looking for the betting opportunities over the next few months!
Congratulations, sounds like a fun next few months for you!
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
I think Bidens record as President is superb, maybe best of my lifetime.
But what Macron has done is really impressive. To set up your own party and dominate French politics from the centre is pretty unique.
There's a whole light industry around assessing the relative merits of all the Presidents of the USA. It is a surprisingly technical exercise and there is a good deal of consensus - for example, across the board, FDR rates highly and Nixon low. Obama is somewhere in the middle.
When the time comes, I suspect Biden will rate fairly high, and certainly above Obama. Apart from anything else, he saved us from Trump and delivered a decent economy. Not bad for a doddery old fool who can't remember where he left his car keys.
On topic, Mike is right - these slips will cost Biden the presidency if he insists on running. But if he does insist on running, he will be the candidate unless a much more serious health issue intervenes. No-one is going to actively stop him and even trying will be messy.
Might do a guest thread on it, if there's any interest?
Yes it's up to Joe Biden barring an actual health 'event'. He has to answer (to himself) the million dollar question. Not "Can I serve another 4 years?" - that's irrelevant - but "Can I do this campaign and win?"
He's clearly already done this and answered Yes. That's where we are. But where are we going?
(look fwd to the header)
Imagine if he beats Trump again. What a humiliation for Trump to have been beaten by a senile dementia case.
That's true the other way around as well.
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
Arguably it all went wrong when Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008 instead of using the primaries to increase his profile before bowing out and waiting his turn. That's how we ended up with a past-it, entitled Clinton running against Trump in 2016.
Odd way of looking at things. Picking a weaker candidate over a stronger one because it wasn't the stronger candidate's turn would have been an interesting strategy.
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
Objectively, Clinton was more qualified to be President in 2008 than Obama was.
Nobody talked about who was most "qualified" until Hillary, and it didn't help her because the voters correctly read it as "entitled".
Hillary's problem in 2008 was the same as her problem two terms later against Trump. She and her team had not understood the electoral system so her campaign concentrated on piling up votes in safe states while Obama and Trump respectively mopped up delegates across the country. Fool me once, etc.
All those places your plane fies over when you travel from meeting the lobbyists in DC to the donors in LA, well those places are full of people, and they have a vote too.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol Sunak - oh dear Scholz - who? Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power Meloni - too early, but not looking good Trudeau - effete, lame duck That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
It is a sorry lineup at the moment. After years of decline.
Tragically, it might be Donald Tusk.
A lightweight posturer.
Perhaps the leaders of Sweden and Finland - whoever they are.
I did say "tragically". Posturer, yes. I'm not sure he's a lightweight.
Finnish PM is PB favourite Sanna Marin.
Can't remember the Swedish PM but he's only been in a couple of years. The previous PM started the NATO process. Don't know what else they've done since.
No, Marin has gone - sadly, for lovers of THE FINLAND RUMOUR
Comments
So entirely typical of the DfE.
There were plenty more revelations, the interview is genuinely interesting. I know this idea strains the minds of many on PB. but it is the case
Carlson failed to work within the limitations of the platform, and even motivated viewers will have switched off. The ramble should have been edited out, or moved to the end.
At one point Putin talks about Elon Musk in a way which implies, ever so slightly, that they are friends. "Elon is this, Elon is that"
Curious
UK government must figure out how to share spending data across departments after up to £59 billion ... was lost to fraud and error early in the pandemic.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/nao_pandemic_fraud_data/
NAO report: Lessons learned:tackling fraud and protecting propriety in government spending during an emergency
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/lessons-learned-tackling-fraud-and-protecting-propriety-in-government-spending-during-an-emergency.pdf
Sounds a bit Dominic Cummings meets Big Brother but otoh that is [insert number here] pence off income tax.
Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
·
11h
Election officials in Wisconsin voted that the Green Party is eligible to appear on presidential election ballots.
At a meeting of the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday, the commissioners voted unanimously to grant the party’s petition.
He definitely could have prevented the SMO and chose not to though. In January 2022, when it was in the post, he could have put a T45 into Odessa and 16 Air Assault into Kharkov. That would have given the Russians pause for thought and scrambled their invasion plans. Instead Ukraine got a crate of ATGMs and a card from Moonpig that said, "Good Luck! LOL!"
Personally, I'm happy with the reactions I've encountered here and around my 'small corner'. They hardly suggest it's worth wasting a couple of hours watching and listening to a stunt which appears to have fallen a little flat (as defined).
No one is talking about it on the Shoppa Hoppa from Stroud
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-rod-stewart-says-labour-deserve-a-crack-at-running-the-country-13067683
We keep coming back to 'how the fuck did we end up here?'
I am less optimistic than I was. The failure to provide more long range missiles and fighter jets seems lame and at the other end being unable to equip Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells when North Korea has given Russia a million rounds is pathetic. I'm no expert but there may still be a way to get the bill through Congress.
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1755983977091854711
Doubt if it will succeed, but another nuisance for Trump.
It's not my importance, it's the prohibitive cost of insuring a journalist going to Russia
The BBC, or Elon Musk, can afford it. The Knapper's Gazette, not so much
And without any insurance everything becomes a million times harder
I never said she was indifferent to it. I said she didn't know it was happening. For all I know she might have been beside herself with excitement if she did.
The point I was making, which clearly went over that enormous IQ of yours (but which I stated in very plain English) was 'I don't think most people even knew it happened' which I believe is true. I suspect if you did a survey on the street of any British town the numbers who would have known it happened would be in the single digit percentages.
There is a difference between knowing something and being indifferent to it. Honestly, high IQ?
🔹10 TORY TREASURERS have been made Lords since 2010
🔹Since 2014 all of them (apart from Marks at c£170k) have donated more than £3 million to the party.
https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1756225792969781633
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68258641
Certainly much much lucid and formidable than Trump or Biden, Tragically
However I part ways with you on Vlad's ghastliness. Putin is definitelty ghastly: cold, amoral and happy to slaughter entire cities
It might also have left us with President Sarah Palin in a subsequent election. That would have been - suboptimal. She's not as off the wall as Trump, but she's pretty bad.
Obama arguably made a serious mistake in not bringing younger candidates on in his second cabinet to be ready for the nomination in 2016. Indeed, I have argued that for years. But Trump's behaviour in destroying the democratic protections within the the Republican Party also deserves a mention.
But....
This is actually an interesting article on the current status and possible futures of A Certain Medium of Exchange.
And since I know the subject is of interest, I thought I would post it.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/economics/64492/the-end-of-money-cashless-society
If it triggers two Certain Posters, I will apologise.
(and I note it starts with Piers Corbyn, but it also makes clear the man is a twat.)
Probably a very unpopular opinion.
The cost is just over £100 for 2. I am paying over £1000 to see Santana and Eric Clapton later in the year and some of these tributes I think are better than the originals. Others to go for are 'Rumours of Fleetwood Mac" (from the same stable) and the "Illegal Eagles".
And the corpse of my ten years' dead tomcat is better qualified than Trump, and he still won.
It's not just about who would be 'most qualified.' The most qualified person is the one who is best placed to win.
(Arguably this holds good in other fields as well. Amanda Spielman is totally unqualified for any post in education. She has done them all very badly and with genuinely calamitous results. I would have done them a thousand times better, and any other teacher, or even teaching assistant, at least a hundred times better. But that doesn't count when things are done on a 'who you know' basis.)
Not everyone has, or can use, a smartphone.
Only two parties can govern the UK. Neither score stellar marks under this picture of moderate Toryism. But Labour currently score much higher than the Tories. Rod Stewart is right.
Hilary Clinton would not have been a great president.
Few presidents are, in fact, any good. In some fairly important respects Biden has been better than average.
And that's OK, because actually, you know what? It's a bloody difficult job. Hardest gig in the world in many respects.
But there is no president, not Hoover, not Buchanan, not Harrison, who has been quite so epically awful as Trump was. For a start, none of them tried to mount a coup to stay in office.*
And that's the real puzzle. What is it about the Republicans that they want to elect a loser, serial criminal, self-confessed predatory sex pest and senile near-octogenarian as President?
Only one of those so far as is known applies to Biden...
*in the case of Harrison, of course, that question didn't really arise.
What a pickle we are in
Is there an impressive western leader? I'd probably pick Macron as the most obviously intelligent and astute, but OTOH he is making quite a hash of things in France, the economy is in trouble, he lost the parliamentary elections, and he will likely (as things stand) be succeeded by Marine Le Pen. That cannot be seen as a wonderful legacy
Bukele of El Salvador? Perhaps we should make HIM leader of the Free World
Bet the readers of The Flintknappers Gazette lapped it up though.
They want Trump cos they think he will win.
Same reason the Brexiteers picked BoZo despite knowing what a **** he is.
Who would PBers pick as the most impressive leader in the western world? Is there one? Do we have any?
Biden - lol
Sunak - oh dear
Scholz - who?
Macron - lame duck allowing the hard right into power
Meloni - too early, but not looking good
Trudeau - effete, lame duck
That Australian guy who lost his own referendum, lol
Err......
Humza Yousaf? Perhaps it is Humza Yousaf
In any case, Clinton polled better against McCain than Obama did.
Trump is probably less likely to beat Biden than just about any GOP Senator or Governor.
The other 'debate' is about trying to predict how the war will actually pan out, eg opining on how we ought to react to various possible developments. Here people will say different things depending on their worldview and thought processes (eg I'll stress the potential impact of GOP/MAGA ascendency), and so one gets a more 'grainy' discourse, which people should be able to contribute pessimistically to without being called names. Maybe Ukraine won't get their territory back, they're not bound to just because they're the good guys. This sort of chat is definitely more interesting. But it's also pointless because nobody has much of a clue how things will unfold.
Tragically, it might be Donald Tusk.
He remains the worst person in living memory to get the job.
One bad habit Dems have is that they'll have the primary and their voters will pick the right person and then the winner will bring in the loser in the name of party unity and implement all their bad ideas. Elizabeth Warren's campaign completely bombed but Biden's administration is full of her people.
But by his tolerance of other people's misconduct.
Ironic.
Which other potential British PM would have done the same? Presumably you would have preferred us to follow the European consensus that it was hopeless?
It is a good question though and illustrates what a poor crop we have right now. Hopefully it is darkest before dawn.
Perhaps the leaders of Sweden and Finland - whoever they are.
But surely, for now, we have to travel to Cardiff to see the greatest of them all.
Just as long as we don't drive too fast.
https://x.com/wolsned/status/1756233535919206813?s=20
@williamglenn linked to his speech after his phenomenal victory. It is electrifying - partly because of the setting, the huge jubilant crowds, the enormous victory, the palpable relief of an entire nation saved from violent anarchy. BUT he also has IT, the gift, the charisma
You can see how it could easily tip over into demagoguery, and then Fascism, but for now he appears to be a democrat, and extremely good at it, albeit ruthless (but he had no choice, and it is the will of the people - as he constantly says)
But what Macron has done is really impressive. To set up your own party and dominate French politics from the centre is pretty unique.
Boris (to take a random example) is quite capable of prattling on in similar vein. Similarly for many US politicians.
Though probably for a couple of minutes rather than half an hour.
Democracy should be about accurately representing the will of the people. There are arguments to be made about liberalism and the dangers of the tyranny of the majority, i.e. we shouldn't bring back hanging just because 51% of people approve of it.
But in a democratic system, if a policy is overwhelmingly unpopular, a politician - as a representative of the people - shouldn't be trying to force it through.
At best, we can get rid of them at the next election and vote in someone more aligned to the majority view. At worst, our democratic institutions aren't enough to act as a check on this. For example, the way FPTP delivers majorities on a minority of votes, or the enormous structural democratic deficit at the heart of the EU.
TL;DR. Democracy should be about representing the will of the people. It should not be about politicians pursuing their pet projects. Unless you're arguing that we don't know what's good for us, in which case we might as well have done with it and appoint a dictator.
She’s recently gone from putting her thumb on the scale to outright judicial malfeasance.
It’s not a nuisance for Trump for now, as it means more delay.
And of course he has now been revealed as undeniably demented, a man who cannot put three sentences together, a man who thinks he recently had tea with Queen Victoria, and he confuses Canada with Neptune
No, I would not describe Biden as "impressive"
Story told of Manuel Fraga, who was a moderniser under Franco, then a reactionary dinosaur in the democratic era.
"He's so clever, the Spanish State fits inside his brain" people said. And so it did, when it was a dictatorship. But a democracy is so much more complex, everyone wanting different contradictory things, all those damn individuals. Fraga's Spain ended up too small, because it was constrained by the size of his (considerable) mind.
Running a dictatorship, where the state gets to put people in one of a smallish number of boxes, is much easier.
Even if we don't have disturbing fetishes, we all crave enough order to get things we want done. The trouble with the strongman model is that, once they've done the easy bits, once they have to make choices to please some and displease others, it tends to go a bit Pete Tong, and they can only get consent by force and lying.
Finnish PM is PB favourite Sanna Marin.
Can't remember the Swedish PM but he's only been in a couple of years. The previous PM started the NATO process. Don't know what else they've done since.
He keeps insisting he is a democrat....
Returning to Leon's question the leaders in the autocratic East are much worse again. Xi makes mistake after mistake; Putin is a disaster for Russia. It's a mistake to confuse control of the polity for good government.
In fact it's unlikely he would be sure whether it came before or after WW1 without checking it on Google.
Had Obama waited until 2016 he might have lost after 8 years of Hillary as she lost after 8 years of him
Standard history taught in Russian schools in a parcel of lies, in a similar manner to the way US school kids were taught about the civil war back in the 1970s.
Real study of the progress and future of a complex war is hard. The first casualty is truth. For Ukraine, if you really want to work it out in detail start with reading up and finding out from: RUSI, King's College, Chatham House, The Economist, Prof Michael Clarke, The British Academy list of experts, and work outwards (these are just UK sources). It's a big job.
At least some updated stuff is around and being discussed.
Try following the devastating war in Sudan - almost entirely ignored in the UK, and as appalling or more than Gaza and Ukraine. BTW the Best source known to me is:
https://sudantribune.com/
Scotland v France
France are going to throw the ball around and this has the makings of a high scoring game... Scotland 20 France 30
England v Wales
This is going to be a very tight game. England will try to outmuscle Wales but expect Wales to counterattack from deep. This will probably be a narrow England win 24-20 but chance of a Welsh upset.
Ireland v Italy
Italy will be competitive for around 20 minutes but overall I expect another dominant game from Ireland. 40-15
I am now, IMO, city adjacent which is a relief. Getting off the hamster wheel a for bit will be nice and I've got the next 6 months to spend with the family, which is great timing because baby number 2 will be here in a few weeks.
Two big elections coming up this year as well so will definitely be spending some time looking for the betting opportunities over the next few months!
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/11/us-deficit-tops-half-a-trillion-dollars-in-the-first-quarter-of-fiscal-year.html
He is certainly not superb, in fact he is probably the weakest Democratic President since Carter, however if he faces Trump again he may still win. Whereas if Haley was his opponent in November he would definitely be heading for the exit door
PS - good to see you back!
When the time comes, I suspect Biden will rate fairly high, and certainly above Obama. Apart from anything else, he saved us from Trump and delivered a decent economy. Not bad for a doddery old fool who can't remember where he left his car keys.