Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Biden slips sharply in the WH2024 betting after more memory lapses – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Harper said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
    Yes she is, albeit provided Trump didn't go 3rd party
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,161

    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 plz!
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,473
    ...

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:



    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.

    There no strategy ever articulated for Western involvement in the SMO beyond some platitude about "as long as it takes". The US doesn't want a decisive Ukrainian victory because they have not created the conditions for one. Evidence outweighs testimony. What they actually do want other than a Forever War is hard to gauge.
    This is where there's a meaningful difference between Trump and A.N. Other generic candidate in 2024.

    Trump has a bias towards the decisive "whatever it takes" over the indecisive "as long as it takes". That's probably why the world was more stable when he was in the White House. He made it much harder for would-be enemies of the US to predict what would happen if they crossed a line.
    Your Trump related posts should come with a health/bullshit warning.

  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.

  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 739
    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    In some respects, Macron was simply following the path laid by Bayrou - though he did do it much better!

    I'd pick Trudeau. I agree that he's now a lame duck but I'd question 'effete'. He's certainly run a muscular foreign policy, and has had some notable successes. Yes, many of them were simply a matter of playing to Canada's traditional strengths - but at least he's done that, unlike Stephen Harper.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715
    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Thanks for that. I have heard that also. I saw the Stones at the Olympic Stadium and they were very good. Some of these tribute acts are huge in their own right so I would like to give the Counterfeit Stones a go. The ones I mentioned above sell out really decent sized venues every night and do European and US tours so are becoming stars in their own right. I guess I am getting old, but I do prefer the comfy seat and being able to see the stage clearly as opposed to standing in a stadium.

    The Jeff Beck tribute at the Albert Hall last year was fantastic, but ouch it wasn't cheap.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    Roger said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    Netanyahu at least had the excuse for invading Gaza that Hamas had massacred Israelis in Israel in a terrorist attack. Putin has no such excuse for invading Ukraine
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197
    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.

    Oh sure. If we send in NATO troops and allow conscription in the west we could have this war wrapped up in victory within a year. So why is noone willing to contemplate this.
  • Options
    novanova Posts: 525
    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Or maybe the people with power would just take themselves one step further away from the drugs, and a few more naïve and desperate people would end up on our brand new Death Row.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,473
    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725
    Penddu2 said:

    FWIW - my 6 Nations predictions....

    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

    How did you do last week with your predix? This is not a barbed remark, I am genuinely curious


    I would differ this week

    Scotland looked dominant against Wales and only - nearly - lost, because they got complacent and then Wales were possessed by some amazing demon energy. Finn Russell is a truly great player and so is Van Der Wotsit, and France are in a terrible post World Cup sulk and they've lost Dupont and they don't care

    Scotland by ten points, around 30-20


    England Wales?

    Agreed very tight, but England are at home, and Wales look fragile

    England by 10, around 25-15


    Ireland Italy. Yes, agreed, Ireland far too good, even for a reviving Italy. 40-15 sounds about right


  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,018
    Scott_xP said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Nearly Dan are excellent.
    The Iron Maidens are superb
    Black Sabbitch are excellent. The biggest two faults of tribute bands IMO are that they ape the original band members, and that they play the album version note-perfect, which no band ever did. Black Sabbitch do neither, fairly obviously in the first case.

    I recently turned down a chance to see an apparently very good ACDC tribute because I don't want to see some prick prancing about in shorts pretending to be Angus Young, and I have been to a couple of Pink Floyd acts which were technically very good but, sorry, I could have just put the CD on and turned it up loud.

    Glenn Hughes plays Deep Purple very well. OK he was a band member, but he can scream like Gillan (which Gillan no longer can)
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,928
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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
    The second round of the finnish preseidential election is tomorrow - Alexander Stubb vs Pekka Haavisto.

    I am not a particular fan of Marin, who presided over a government that treaded water for a few years, but would concede that she made Finnish politics a bit more interesting.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,046
    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    And yet they were readily and easily available in Taiwan when I lived there in the 90's.
  • Options
    AlsoLei said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    In some respects, Macron was simply following the path laid by Bayrou - though he did do it much better!

    I'd pick Trudeau. I agree that he's now a lame duck but I'd question 'effete'. He's certainly run a muscular foreign policy, and has had some notable successes. Yes, many of them were simply a matter of playing to Canada's traditional strengths - but at least he's done that, unlike Stephen Harper.
    Mrs PtP is of Canadian extraction. Her family has always been absorbed by Canadian politics, and at times directly involved. Her eldest brother has run for Parliament there. Her younger brother was in the same class as Trudeau at school.

    She would not pick him. No, no, no......! :)
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,161
    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence....

    Um, this isn't right. Russia is fighting using a mercenary army and it's own troops, the latter of which are reinforced by unwilling conscriptees and prison battalions: it's the exact opposite of a professional army. As for the Ukrainians, they have been fully mobilised since the beginning.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,089
    edited February 10

    Billions lost to fraud and error during UK's pandemic spending spree

    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.

    Hmm. 59x10e9 is almost 1K per person - rather more than that per actual adult UK taxpayer. Sure, it sounds better in terms of [edit] pence off basic rate, but ...

    Which might help why, for instance, central London is doing so much better than much of the UK, as we keep beingtold on PB. With that much money sloshing around either as it is or yielding cuts as it is exported to tax havens.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,100

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates . The death penalty isn’t a deterrent .
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels
    with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an
    expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy
    and our (relatively) free society.
    If the threat is that serious then you have to support nato troops going in and conscription in the west.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,928
    Carnyx said:

    Billions lost to fraud and error during UK's pandemic spending spree

    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.

    Hmm. 59x10e9 is almost 1K per person - rather more than that per actual adult UK taxpayer. Sure, it sounds better in terms off basic rate, but ...

    Which might help why, for instance, central London is doing so much better than much of the UK, as we keep beingtold on PB. With that much money sloshing around either as it is or yielding cuts as it is exported to tax havens.
    This last point is the key to why tax cuts for the wealthy* are a terrible idea.

    Do they incentivise entrepreneurship? Do they f%ck - the extra dosh the wealthy acquire gets squirrelled away offshore or further inflates the property bubble.

    (*I include myself in this definition btw, for those who think I am advocating only taxing others more.)
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,065
    kjh said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Thanks for that. I have heard that also. I saw the Stones at the Olympic Stadium and they were very good. Some of these tribute acts are huge in their own right so I would like to give the Counterfeit Stones a go. The ones I mentioned above sell out really decent sized venues every night and do European and US tours so are becoming stars in their own right. I guess I am getting old, but I do prefer the comfy seat and being able to see the stage clearly as opposed to standing in a stadium.

    The Jeff Beck tribute at the Albert Hall last year was fantastic, but ouch it wasn't cheap.
    It’s as much a comedy show as music, but they’re quite a tight act. I’ve not seen any other tribute bands, but TCS tell the Stones story chronologically, so you have them in high necked suits at the start, & by the end Jagger (Nick Dagger) is jumping around stage in an American football kit. Amazing energy, I think he is 70 himself
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725
    nico679 said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates . The death penalty isn’t a deterrent .
    They don't execute drug dealers, like Singapore

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66333776

    Singapore has a minuscule drug problem
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 739
    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.

    Oh sure. If we send in NATO troops and allow conscription in the west we could have this war wrapped up in victory within a year. So why is noone willing to contemplate this.
    Ah, yes. A full-scale war between nuclear powers. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it...?
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949
    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,940
    Purge
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,156
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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
    The second round of the finnish preseidential election is tomorrow - Alexander Stubb vs Pekka Haavisto.

    I am not a particular fan of Marin, who presided over a government that treaded water for a few years, but would concede that she made Finnish politics a bit more interesting.
    Oh! I'm well behind the curve.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,940
    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    viewcode said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence....

    Um, this isn't right. Russia is fighting using a mercenary army and it's own troops, the latter of which are reinforced by unwilling conscriptees and prison battalions: it's the exact opposite of a professional army. As for the Ukrainians, they have been fully mobilised since the beginning.

    Ukraine is tightening its mobilisation rules rather than introducing it - so you are correct - but the manpower point still holds.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/embattled-ukraine-moves-tighten-army-mobilisation-rules-2024-01-31/
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/

    My understanding is that Russia is that it is scaling back the prison battalions and conscription and is fighting with contract soldiers, but this is from what I have read on the internet.

    Happy to be corrected on the above.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    edited February 10
    nico679 said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates . The death penalty isn’t a deterrent .
    Though a genuine whole life term in prison for those who do murder and longer prison terms for drug dealers at least probably would be
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197
    AlsoLei said:

    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.

    Oh sure. If we send in NATO troops and allow conscription in the west we could have this war wrapped up in victory within a year. So why is noone willing to contemplate this.
    Ah, yes. A full-scale war between nuclear powers. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it...?
    AlsoLei said:

    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.

    Oh sure. If we send in NATO troops and allow conscription in the west we could have this war wrapped up in victory within a year. So why is noone willing to contemplate this.
    Ah, yes. A full-scale war between nuclear powers. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it...?
    Yes but as you say the threat from russia is existential to the west. So we have to grasp the nettle and fight sooner or later better sooner. Putin will be unlikely to go nuclear anyway.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,089

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949
    edited February 10
    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.

    Oh sure. If we send in NATO troops and allow conscription in the west we could have this war wrapped up in victory within a year. So why is noone willing to contemplate this.
    As Ukraine is not a NATO member state
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,473
    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
    In the UK and the US our drug dealers are feted. Despite Purdue Pharma promoting Oxycontin to the detriment of the population at large we make the Sacklurs and their like patrons of the arts.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/books/review/empire-of-pain-sackler-dynasty-patrick-radden-keefe.html
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,100

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    You mean like the 55+ innocent people executed in the USA .

    I’m happier to see much stiffer sentences and life should mean life but we don’t need to follow the USA .
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    edited February 10
    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    Scott_xP said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Nearly Dan are excellent.
    The Iron Maidens are superb
    Black Sabbitch are excellent. The biggest two faults of tribute bands IMO are that they ape the original band members, and that they play the album version note-perfect, which no band ever did. Black Sabbitch do neither, fairly obviously in the first case.

    I recently turned down a chance to see an apparently very good ACDC tribute because I don't want to see some prick prancing about in shorts pretending to be Angus Young, and I have been to a couple of Pink Floyd acts which were technically very good but, sorry, I could have just put the CD on and turned it up loud.

    Glenn Hughes plays Deep Purple very well. OK he was a band member, but he can scream like Gillan (which Gillan no longer can)
    Covers bands are a massive YouTube rabbithole, where one can get lost for weeks. Some of them are exceptionally talented. Personally I prefer those who change the style of songs, or who add something to the performance.

    Three recent finds, all of whom have millions of followers:

    Postmodern Jukebox, an American jazz band who do old-style covers of modern pop songs.
    https://youtube.com/@postmodernjukebox

    Pentatonix, an acapella group that somehow give the impression of a full band playing.
    https://youtube.com/@PTXofficial

    2Cellos, just two guys with cellos. I actually saw them live last year, absolutely brilliant.
    https://youtube.com/@2CELLOSlive
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725
    edited February 10

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Yes, like that terrible guy in Nottingham. Absolutely no question about his guilt, seriously evil, a string of dire offences, then he stabs three to death in a frenzy, he will never be let out. So we have to pay millions to keep him in Broadmoor til he snuffs it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/23/nottingham-stabbings-prosecutors-accept-killers-plea-of-manslaughter-valdo-calocane#:~:text=Families of the victims faced,spree of violence in June.

    To hell with that. Shoot him dead, at the cost of one bullet, spend the money saved on the victims' families
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,926
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.

    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
    Afghanistan - I think he took the necessary and tough decision (implemented poorly from a press perspective). We can see now that all our efforts to build an afghan state were largely useless and Taliban was taking over whenever US left.

    Pulling out has certainly helped free up resources to support Ukraine - I would say he has struck a good balance between defending Europe & not starting WWIII.

    Gaza is a disaster and Biden needs to change his policy.

    On the economy, he has managed to bring down inflation without crashing the economy. Economic growth is good. I'm particularly impressed we finally have a dem president who ignores Larry summers.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,919
    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    No. Leading Dems want to be President. Zero chance they all agree to step aside for a popular celeb. The only people they step aside for are definitely Biden, probably Harris and possibly Michelle Obama.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    No. Leading Dems want to be President. Zero chance they all agree to step aside for a popular celeb. The only people they step aside for are definitely Biden, probably Harris and possibly Michelle Obama.
    RCP betting average now has Obama third favourite with a 9% chance.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting-odds/2024/president/
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725

    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
    In the UK and the US our drug dealers are feted. Despite Purdue Pharma promoting Oxycontin to the detriment of the population at large we make the Sacklurs and their like patrons of the arts.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/books/review/empire-of-pain-sackler-dynasty-patrick-radden-keefe.html
    The story of the Sacklers is an absolute disgrace, I agree, but it is not fundemantal to the rise of Fentanyl and now Tranq

    People who never went near Oxycontin or any of those horrible legal opioids are dying of Fent and Tranq

    110,000 Americans in a year. Like a really bad war; like two Vietnams, every year
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,928
    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels
    with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an
    expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy
    and our (relatively) free society.
    If the threat is that serious then you have to support nato troops going in and conscription in the west.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.
    I know my post was brilliant but did you have to quote it five times?
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197

    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels
    with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an
    expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy
    and our (relatively) free society.
    If the threat is that serious then you have to support nato troops going in and conscription in the west.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.
    I know my post was brilliant but did you have to quote it five times?
    Sorry. Just having wifi problems here at present.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,018
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Yes, like that terrible guy in Nottingham. Absolutely no question about his guilt, seriously evil, a string of dire offences, then he stabs three to death in a frenzy, he will never be let out. So we have to pay millions to keep him in Broadmoor til he snuffs it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/23/nottingham-stabbings-prosecutors-accept-killers-plea-of-manslaughter-valdo-calocane#:~:text=Families of the victims faced,spree of violence in June.

    To hell with that. Shoot him dead, at the cost of one bullet, spend the money saved on the victims' families
    He would never have been executed, even in the days of the death penalty
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949
    edited February 10
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
    Well I was just using him as an example. But you get the point I'm making?

    The Dems have put all their eggs in the basket of a very old man who has been deemed so senile he couldn't even stand trial if prosecutors wanted to charge him. Obviously, he's finished and it all reflects very badly on the Demorcrats who have been supporting him.

    Yet, there is no viable candidate waiting in the wigs to take over from him. So what's left for the Dems? How are they going to stop Trump? All I can think of is to find a celebrity backer and ask them to be their candidate.

    The Dems (and the US) are in the proverbial shitter (as may we all be by November)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Yes, like that terrible guy in Nottingham. Absolutely no question about his guilt, seriously evil, a string of dire offences, then he stabs three to death in a frenzy, he will never be let out. So we have to pay millions to keep him in Broadmoor til he snuffs it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/23/nottingham-stabbings-prosecutors-accept-killers-plea-of-manslaughter-valdo-calocane#:~:text=Families of the victims faced,spree of violence in June.

    To hell with that. Shoot him dead, at the cost of one bullet, spend the money saved on the victims' families
    I certainly wouldn't support the death penalty for manslaughter. Clearly he should be detained indefinitely given his severe mental health problems led him to kill but that should have been the case before, he should have been permanently sectioned. Another example of care in the community gone wrong
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Harper said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
    It's not so much that they have a vote. That's the trap Hillary fell into. What Hillary forgot, twice, is that each state elects delegates to the party convention or electoral college. As Sunil often reminds us, Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump but it's delegates and not raw votes that matter.
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
    Well I was just using him as an example. But you get the point I'm making?

    The Dems have put all their eggs in the basket of a very old man who has been deemed so senile he couldn't even stand trial if prosecutors wanted to charge him. Obviously, he's finished and it all reflects very badly on the Demorcrats who have been supporting him.

    Yet, there is no viable candidate waiting in the wigs to take over from him. So what's left for the Dems? How are they going to stop Trump? All I can think of is to find a celebrity backer and ask them to be their candidate.

    The Dems (and the US) are in the proverbial shitter!
    What about Leonardo dicaprio. He would hoover up the female vote.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Yes, like that terrible guy in Nottingham. Absolutely no question about his guilt, seriously evil, a string of dire offences, then he stabs three to death in a frenzy, he will never be let out. So we have to pay millions to keep him in Broadmoor til he snuffs it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/23/nottingham-stabbings-prosecutors-accept-killers-plea-of-manslaughter-valdo-calocane#:~:text=Families of the victims faced,spree of violence in June.

    To hell with that. Shoot him dead, at the cost of one bullet, spend the money saved on the victims' families
    He would never have been executed, even in the days of the death penalty
    So I'm saying we have to get pro-active

    Also, isn't there some dispute over his conviction, and the possibility the Crown might come back for a murder charge?

    In which case he would be liable for the noose, if we had some sensible Salvadorean style government
  • Options
    @AlsoLei

    Mrs PtP just wandered past and saw your comment on Trudeau. She was able to add the much more useful comment that 'effete' is not only an insulting adjective, it is inappropriate. She describes him as sort of 'Television soap glam' and vain, but definitely not effete.

    She added that in the event of his demise he would probably be replaced by Chrystia Freeland, who is extremely tough and capable:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrystia_Freeland

    She has for many years been his right hand woman and is probably responsible for much of his success.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,217
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates . The death penalty isn’t a deterrent .
    They don't execute drug dealers, like Singapore

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66333776

    Singapore has a minuscule drug problem
    Singapore has a huge drug problem. It's impossible to get hold of any drugs there.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    Harper said:

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
    Well I was just using him as an example. But you get the point I'm making?

    The Dems have put all their eggs in the basket of a very old man who has been deemed so senile he couldn't even stand trial if prosecutors wanted to charge him. Obviously, he's finished and it all reflects very badly on the Demorcrats who have been supporting him.

    Yet, there is no viable candidate waiting in the wigs to take over from him. So what's left for the Dems? How are they going to stop Trump? All I can think of is to find a celebrity backer and ask them to be their candidate.

    The Dems (and the US) are in the proverbial shitter!
    What about Leonardo dicaprio. He would hoover up the female vote.
    Biden is already winning the female vote. It is the male vote Trump leads in
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715
    edited February 10
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Nearly Dan are excellent.
    The Iron Maidens are superb
    Black Sabbitch are excellent. The biggest two faults of tribute bands IMO are that they ape the original band members, and that they play the album version note-perfect, which no band ever did. Black Sabbitch do neither, fairly obviously in the first case.

    I recently turned down a chance to see an apparently very good ACDC tribute because I don't want to see some prick prancing about in shorts pretending to be Angus Young, and I have been to a couple of Pink Floyd acts which were technically very good but, sorry, I could have just put the CD on and turned it up loud.

    Glenn Hughes plays Deep Purple very well. OK he was a band member, but he can scream like Gillan (which Gillan no longer can)
    Covers bands are a massive YouTube rabbithole, where one can get lost for weeks. Some of them are exceptionally talented. Personally I prefer those who change the style of songs, or who add something to the performance.

    Three recent finds, all of whom have millions of followers:

    Postmodern Jukebox, an American jazz band who do old-style covers of modern pop songs.
    https://youtube.com/@postmodernjukebox

    Pentatonix, an acapella group that somehow give the impression of a full band playing.
    https://youtube.com/@PTXofficial

    2Cellos, just two guys with cellos. I actually saw them live last year, absolutely brilliant.
    https://youtube.com/@2CELLOSlive
    Post Modern Jukebox version of 'All about the bass' is excellent. Quite sexy.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,928
    Harper said:

    Harper said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels
    with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an
    expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy
    and our (relatively) free society.
    If the threat is that serious then you have to support nato troops going in and conscription in the west.

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    And fair enough in return.

    Personally, I see too many parallels with the 1930s and feel we must do all we can collectively to stand up to an expansionist Russia; the alternative is the end of the Western democracy and our (relatively) free society.
    I know my post was brilliant but did you have to quote it five times?
    Sorry. Just having wifi problems here at present.
    I'd have thought the least they could do is make sure you guys have decent wifi.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,919
    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    No. Leading Dems want to be President. Zero chance they all agree to step aside for a popular celeb. The only people they step aside for are definitely Biden, probably Harris and possibly Michelle Obama.
    RCP betting average now has Obama third favourite with a 9% chance.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting-odds/2024/president/
    I would say:

    Biden stands down 15%
    Harris agrees to stand aside for Obama 25% (and assume everyone else does too)
    Obama agrees to stand <10%
    Obama to win if standing 75%

    2 and 3 need to be combined someway as it would be negotiated from both sides, but it gets me to about 1% rather than 9%. So decently against, but one bet I would actually be quite happy to lose heavily on, as think she would be miles better than the alternatives.
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197
    HYUFD said:

    Harper said:

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
    Well I was just using him as an example. But you get the point I'm making?

    The Dems have put all their eggs in the basket of a very old man who has been deemed so senile he couldn't even stand trial if prosecutors wanted to charge him. Obviously, he's finished and it all reflects very badly on the Demorcrats who have been supporting him.

    Yet, there is no viable candidate waiting in the wigs to take over from him. So what's left for the Dems? How are they going to stop Trump? All I can think of is to find a celebrity backer and ask them to be their candidate.

    The Dems (and the US) are in the proverbial shitter!
    What about Leonardo dicaprio. He would hoover up the female vote.
    Biden is already winning the female vote. It is the male vote Trump leads in
    Yes but dicaprio might tempt the Trump soccer moms over to the dems.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,940
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    One of the problems of law and order debate in the UK is governments obsessing about sentencing to the exclusion of meaningful policies on policing, prevention and security.

    Cut police and stop bothering to follow up on property crimes and no amount of exemplary sentencing is going to help.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,065
    edited February 10
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Yes, like that terrible guy in Nottingham. Absolutely no question about his guilt, seriously evil, a string of dire offences, then he stabs three to death in a frenzy, he will never be let out. So we have to pay millions to keep him in Broadmoor til he snuffs it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/23/nottingham-stabbings-prosecutors-accept-killers-plea-of-manslaughter-valdo-calocane#:~:text=Families of the victims faced,spree of violence in June.

    To hell with that. Shoot him dead, at the cost of one bullet, spend the money saved on the victims' families
    It might put people off taking drugs too. Calocane seems to have been helped on the way to schizophrenia by marijuana, as have many others. You could argue that lax enforcement of our drug laws was his accomplice

  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Nearly Dan are excellent.
    The Iron Maidens are superb
    Black Sabbitch are excellent. The biggest two faults of tribute bands IMO are that they ape the original band members, and that they play the album version note-perfect, which no band ever did. Black Sabbitch do neither, fairly obviously in the first case.

    I recently turned down a chance to see an apparently very good ACDC tribute because I don't want to see some prick prancing about in shorts pretending to be Angus Young, and I have been to a couple of Pink Floyd acts which were technically very good but, sorry, I could have just put the CD on and turned it up loud.

    Glenn Hughes plays Deep Purple very well. OK he was a band member, but he can scream like Gillan (which Gillan no longer can)
    No, that's not the flaw with tribute bands. It is their strength that they play the greatest hits, and do so exactly like the records. What has happened now is many bands have become their own tribute acts (although old age means that voices have often gone).
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates . The death penalty isn’t a deterrent .
    They don't execute drug dealers, like Singapore

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66333776

    Singapore has a minuscule drug problem
    Singapore has a huge drug problem. It's impossible to get hold of any drugs there.
    Actually it isn't entirely impossible

    When writing that post I was about to say Singapore has ZERO drug abuse, then I thought I'd better check, and actually they do have a drug problem. But it is vanishingly small compared to anywhere else. But they do have drug dealers and drug takers

    What kind of nutter deals drugs in Singapore? They will - and do - hang you for just 15g of smack. The profit from dealing 15g of smack is about $1000? $2000?

    Presumably these people have not done a proper risk/benefit analysis
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.

    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
    Afghanistan - I think he took the necessary and tough decision (implemented poorly from a press perspective). We can see now that all our efforts to build an afghan state were largely useless and Taliban was taking over whenever US left.

    Pulling out has certainly helped free up resources to support Ukraine - I would say he has struck a good balance between defending Europe & not starting WWIII.

    Gaza is a disaster and Biden needs to change his policy.

    On the economy, he has managed to bring down inflation without crashing the economy. Economic growth is good. I'm particularly impressed we finally have a dem president who ignores Larry summers.
    The US didn't need to leave, it could have kept a presence there indefinitely after 9/11 to shore up the elected government and ensure terrorists did not establish bases in Afghanistan again. It was Boris who led efforts to send weapons to Ukraine pre invasion, not Biden.

    On Gaza Biden has now said Israel's response goes too far but he is powerless while Netanyahu is focused on eliminating Hamas.

    Interest rates are still high and the deficit getting higher
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    That's like arguing against vaccinations because some people will have fatal adverse events.

    Have you heard of Stephen Wright?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,928
    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949
    Harper said:

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
    Well I was just using him as an example. But you get the point I'm making?

    The Dems have put all their eggs in the basket of a very old man who has been deemed so senile he couldn't even stand trial if prosecutors wanted to charge him. Obviously, he's finished and it all reflects very badly on the Demorcrats who have been supporting him.

    Yet, there is no viable candidate waiting in the wigs to take over from him. So what's left for the Dems? How are they going to stop Trump? All I can think of is to find a celebrity backer and ask them to be their candidate.

    The Dems (and the US) are in the proverbial shitter!
    What about Leonardo dicaprio. He would hoover up the female vote.
    He'd have a lot of skeletons in the closet methinks... but no worse than Donald...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,220
    edited February 10
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious! The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    George Clooney might sweep California and New York but I hardly think he would beat Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed he spends much of his time now in his country house by the Thames in Buckinghamshire or his property by Lake Como he is not even in the US much of the time, he has even less connection to the rustbelt than Hillary did
    Well I was just using him as an example. But you get the point I'm making?

    The Dems have put all their eggs in the basket of a very old man who has been deemed so senile he couldn't even stand trial if prosecutors wanted to charge him. Obviously, he's finished and it all reflects very badly on the Demorcrats who have been supporting him.

    Yet, there is no viable candidate waiting in the wigs to take over from him. So what's left for the Dems? How are they going to stop Trump? All I can think of is to find a celebrity backer and ask them to be their candidate.

    The Dems (and the US) are in the proverbial shitter (as may we all be by November)
    Biden has at least proved he can beat Trump in the electoral college in 2020, which no other Democrat has

    Indeed some polls still have him ahead

    https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    Now, that could be a good choice. He's poll well with the rust belt, I'd think?
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,940

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    That's like arguing against vaccinations because some people will have fatal adverse events.

    Have you heard of Stephen Wright?
    If vaccinations had zero statistical efficacy, yes. It would be exactly comparable.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,217
    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
    Fentanyl is a symptom of the war on drugs: a drug of absurd potency so that huge profits can be made off quantities small enough to evade the authorities. The only interesting question about drugs like Fentanyl is why so many people are in a state of mind to take it, despite the obvious massive risks. That is the problem that needs fixing, and it can't be solved by a punative approach. It's a symptom of a society in which people feel bored, depressed, unloved, disconnected.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Yes, like that terrible guy in Nottingham. Absolutely no question about his guilt, seriously evil, a string of dire offences, then he stabs three to death in a frenzy, he will never be let out. So we have to pay millions to keep him in Broadmoor til he snuffs it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/23/nottingham-stabbings-prosecutors-accept-killers-plea-of-manslaughter-valdo-calocane#:~:text=Families of the victims faced,spree of violence in June.

    To hell with that. Shoot him dead, at the cost of one bullet, spend the money saved on the victims' families
    Prison: up for parole in 20 or so years. Secure hospital: life means life.
  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    What about Beyonce.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,928
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    Now, that could be a good choice. He's poll well with the rust belt, I'd think?
    Yeah, I reckon.

    He's only 74 too!
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,666
    Betting post 🐎

    Some good racing and match ups has survived the weather.

    Newbury 1.30 - Judicial Law
    Newbury 2.05 - Shiskin
    Newbury 2.40 - Boothill
    Newbury 3.15 - Our Champ

    So what will Shiskin be up to today then?
    I know what will happen - the only thing left we just didn’t expect.
    Over the last in the lead, and then 🛸 - Alien Abduction.
    You can’t argue with me unless you’re sure I’m wrong 😇
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283
    TimS said:

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    That's like arguing against vaccinations because some people will have fatal adverse events.

    Have you heard of Stephen Wright?
    If vaccinations had zero statistical efficacy, yes. It would be exactly comparable.
    Execution has a 100% success rate against recidivism.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    Now, that could be a good choice. He's poll well with the rust belt, I'd think?
    Yeah, I reckon.

    He's only 74 too!
    Spring chicken lol! 😂
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    Gregg Wallace would be interesting. I think he'd do well in the MidWest

    Or the late TV astronomer Patrick Moore, they could disinter him and he'd probably look healthier than Biden, and make about as much sense
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,065

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    Bobby de Niro

    https://youtu.be/55fJ0FgPSQk?feature=shared

  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,473

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    Socialist traitors. Are they low hanging fruit?

    Don't forget the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Judith Ward and Stefan Kizko (hats off to David Waddington for a job well done) were "low hanging fruit...where there was no plausible doubt about their guilt", until there was.

    I hope I never get to see the UK that you and Leon crave.

  • Options
    HarperHarper Posts: 197
    isam said:

    GIN1138 said:

    TimS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Any chance the Dem's might ask a celebrity to be their Presidential candidate?

    They'd have no shortage of potential candidates....

    We’ve done the Taylor Swift for POTUS debate yesterday already, I’m afraid.
    Well I was thinking someone rather older. George Clooney for example? And I'm serious!

    The Dems have gotten themselves into such deep shit with Biden that they're going to have to do something desperate to stop Trump?
    Bruce Springsteen.

    Definitely Born in the USA so no birther issues.
    Bobby de Niro

    https://youtu.be/55fJ0FgPSQk?feature=shared

    Al Pacino has gangster vibes so might appeal to a lot of Trump voters.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,940
    Never understand why some right wingers who are presumably all about the state getting out of our way in other walks of life are so keen to give them the power to kill us. No thanks.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,476
    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.
    Well just keep making your points and distinguish between the 2 types of feedback, (i) you're helping Putin bla bla vs (ii) engaged sincere disagreement.

    (i) mainly comes from two or three specific posters as far as I can see. No names no packdrill 2/1/18/20.

    So ignore that and take up the cudgels with (ii). Hopefully there's enough of it to provide the debate you're wanting. People like doing geopolitics on here, esp with a military angle.

    I think that's better than ending up with your main point being that you're not allowed to make your point. Leon, Topping, you, this is three off the top of my head succumbing to that viz a vis Ukraine. There's more of you complaining about being muffled than there are doing the muffling. So you're in the box seat.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,089
    TimS said:

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    That's like arguing against vaccinations because some people will have fatal adverse events.

    Have you heard of Stephen Wright?
    If vaccinations had zero statistical efficacy, yes. It would be exactly comparable.
    Quite. I find the comparison extraordinary, as WG is demanding "no plausible doubt" - which is pretty much the assumption when some murderer is convicted, *by definition*, at the trial. Even when there was at at the time, never mind later.

    And I can't see why the unfortunate RC Bishop of Durham is being brought into the conversation.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725
    edited February 10

    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
    Fentanyl is a symptom of the war on drugs: a drug of absurd potency so that huge profits can be made off quantities small enough to evade the authorities. The only interesting question about drugs like Fentanyl is why so many people are in a state of mind to take it, despite the obvious massive risks. That is the problem that needs fixing, and it can't be solved by a punative approach. It's a symptom of a society in which people feel bored, depressed, unloved, disconnected.
    I do not believe Fentanyl is a "symptom of the war on drugs". I believe it is a symptom of Mexican drug cartels realising they can make vast profits out of an extremely powerful, monstrously addictive drug made with cheap precursor chemicals, a drug so potent it is much easier to smuggle (because, less bulk), and it doesn't matter if punters die because the high is so intense others will come

    Plus, they might have been aided and abetted by the Chinese government, wanting to destabilise America - by flooding it with these awful drugs. A lot of Fent comes from China, and it would be a neat revenge for the opium war, when the West did exactly this to THEM
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 739
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.

    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
    Afghanistan - I think he took the necessary and tough decision (implemented poorly from a press perspective). We can see now that all our efforts to build an afghan state were largely useless and Taliban was taking over whenever US left.

    Pulling out has certainly helped free up resources to support Ukraine - I would say he has struck a good balance between defending Europe & not starting WWIII.

    Gaza is a disaster and Biden needs to change his policy.

    On the economy, he has managed to bring down inflation without crashing the economy. Economic growth is good. I'm particularly impressed we finally have a dem president who ignores Larry summers.
    The Afghanistan withdrawal policy was actually Trump's, wasn't it?

    I agree that it seems wise in retrospect - the second decade of the Afghan adventure was a dead loss from the west's POV. The plug really should have been pulled after the death of Bin Laden.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,089
    TimS said:

    Never understand why some right wingers who are presumably all about the state getting out of our way in other walks of life are so keen to give them the power to kill us. No thanks.

    Would they volunteer their services to the Home Office? Or would it be contracted out to some prison contracting firm?

    Actually, now I think of it, in the old days anyway they just sent a telegram to anyone on the HO list the sheriff fancied. Like a list of approved plumbers. So it was privatised then.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    .
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
    In the UK and the US our drug dealers are feted. Despite Purdue Pharma promoting Oxycontin to the detriment of the population at large we make the Sacklurs and their like patrons of the arts.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/books/review/empire-of-pain-sackler-dynasty-patrick-radden-keefe.html
    The story of the Sacklers is an absolute disgrace, I agree, but it is not fundemantal to the rise of Fentanyl and now Tranq

    People who never went near Oxycontin or any of those horrible legal opioids are dying of Fent and Tranq

    110,000 Americans in a year. Like a really bad war; like two Vietnams, every year
    The problem with the OxyContin story, is that it’s a massive setback for those who want to see a more liberal approach to drugs, when a legal drug causes so many societal issues.

    As as been said many times before, you have to have an extreme approach to be successful. Either you sell everything in pharmacies and spend the taxes on rehab facilities, or you go down the Singapore route of high sentences for first offenders. The “war on drugs” route, as seen in most of the west, simply doesn’t work.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,926
    AlsoLei said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.

    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
    Afghanistan - I think he took the necessary and tough decision (implemented poorly from a press perspective). We can see now that all our efforts to build an afghan state were largely useless and Taliban was taking over whenever US left.

    Pulling out has certainly helped free up resources to support Ukraine - I would say he has struck a good balance between defending Europe & not starting WWIII.

    Gaza is a disaster and Biden needs to change his policy.

    On the economy, he has managed to bring down inflation without crashing the economy. Economic growth is good. I'm particularly impressed we finally have a dem president who ignores Larry summers.
    The Afghanistan withdrawal policy was actually Trump's, wasn't it?

    I agree that it seems wise in retrospect - the second decade of the Afghan adventure was a dead loss from the west's POV. The plug really should have been pulled after the death of Bin Laden.
    Fair point - Biden was continuing a Trump decision.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,890
    I see Kemi Badenoch has one of those big style makeover feature things in the Times.

    Which suggests Rupert has decided she’s next.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725
    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Eabhal said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I appreciate this comment, but my point is that there is too much focus on the former, which makes the second discussion next to impossible. To take an example of 'possible developments'. How is it possible to address the issue that Ukraine is preparing for full mobilisation due to a lack of soldiers, whereas Russia has moved away from mobilisation and is fighting the war through a professional army on relatively well paid contracts who sign up due to dire poverty, and who can die at a rate of 1000 per day with no political consequence. The subject is seems to be too sensitive because it means people have to confront the fact that either a) Ukraine may end up losing the war, or b) the west would need to provide a similar amount of human 'cannon fodder' to balance things out - the latter being something, despite all the enthusiasm for the war, no one is willing to seriously contemplate.
    Well just keep making your points and distinguish between the 2 types of feedback, (i) you're helping Putin bla bla vs (ii) engaged sincere disagreement.

    (i) mainly comes from two or three specific posters as far as I can see. No names no packdrill 2/1/18/20.

    So ignore that and take up the cudgels with (ii). Hopefully there's enough of it to provide the debate you're wanting. People like doing geopolitics on here, esp with a military angle.

    I think that's better than ending up with your main point being that you're not allowed to make your point. Leon, Topping, you, this is three off the top of my head succumbing to that viz a vis Ukraine. There's more of you complaining about being muffled than there are doing the muffling. So you're in the box seat.
    I don't complain about not being able to make my point, my complaint is the dull stupidity of the ensuing debate, the low watt discourse - a growing problem on PB

    HOWEVER, someone rightly scolded me yesterday, telling me that I have now made this point eight trillion times on PB, so I am in danger of being as dull as those I deplor, so I shall not repeat the accusation. Apart from this once. But this one is the last. Deffo. Done now

    Off to the gym before the rugger
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283
    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    That's like arguing against vaccinations because some people will have fatal adverse events.

    Have you heard of Stephen Wright?
    If vaccinations had zero statistical efficacy, yes. It would be exactly comparable.
    Quite. I find the comparison extraordinary, as WG is demanding "no plausible doubt" - which is pretty much the assumption when some murderer is convicted, *by definition*, at the trial. Even when there was at at the time, never mind later.

    And I can't see why the unfortunate RC Bishop of Durham is being brought into the conversation.
    When you have a mass vaccination campaign, you know for a fact that a small percentage of people will die as a direct consequence.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65321937

    The death of a psychologist after his Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab was due to "unintended complications of the vaccine", an inquest has ruled.

    Stephen Wright, an NHS employee in south-east London, died 10 days after his first dose in January 2021, senior coroner Andrew Harris found.

    Dr Wright, 32, suffered a blood clot to the brain after receiving the vaccine.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,725
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Indeed. If we had the death penalty for drug trafficking into the uk much of the uk drug trade would be wiped out overnight. At present prison is seen as an acceptable cost of doing business.
    Back in my day on a Saturday we watched and smiled, because "Saturday is Tiswas, never a day to miss 'cos Saturday is Tiswas day".

    Now Saturday is house troll day. We don't want your death penalty over here matey boy!
    I fear it may be coming. Drugs like Fentanyl and Tranq are so dangerous, nations may have to start executing the dealers

    110,000 Americans died of a drug overdose last year. Horrendous. If you could save those lives by hanging 1000 dealers, would you take the offer? Many would

    I suspect Salvador will export its policy
    In the UK and the US our drug dealers are feted. Despite Purdue Pharma promoting Oxycontin to the detriment of the population at large we make the Sacklurs and their like patrons of the arts.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/books/review/empire-of-pain-sackler-dynasty-patrick-radden-keefe.html
    The story of the Sacklers is an absolute disgrace, I agree, but it is not fundemantal to the rise of Fentanyl and now Tranq

    People who never went near Oxycontin or any of those horrible legal opioids are dying of Fent and Tranq

    110,000 Americans in a year. Like a really bad war; like two Vietnams, every year
    The problem with the OxyContin story, is that it’s a massive setback for those who want to see a more liberal approach to drugs, when a legal drug causes so many societal issues.

    As as been said many times before, you have to have an extreme approach to be successful. Either you sell everything in pharmacies and spend the taxes on rehab facilities, or you go down the Singapore route of high sentences for first offenders. The “war on drugs” route, as seen in most of the west, simply doesn’t work.
    Yep, it's one or the other

    I used to be libertarian: legalise everything, tax it for the benefit of the state. Having now personally witnessed what the latest drugs are doing to the USA, I have almost entirely changed my mind. Singapore might be the only solution

    America cannot tolerate 110,000 deaths from OD every year, and getting worse...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283
    TimS said:

    Never understand why some right wingers who are presumably all about the state getting out of our way in other walks of life are so keen to give them the power to kill us. No thanks.

    The primary function of the state is to deliver justice and maintain order, neither of which are served by putting the rights of violent criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    edited February 10
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    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".

    The Counterfeit Stones are good value
    Nearly Dan are excellent.
    The Iron Maidens are superb
    Black Sabbitch are excellent. The biggest two faults of tribute bands IMO are that they ape the original band members, and that they play the album version note-perfect, which no band ever did. Black Sabbitch do neither, fairly obviously in the first case.

    I recently turned down a chance to see an apparently very good ACDC tribute because I don't want to see some prick prancing about in shorts pretending to be Angus Young, and I have been to a couple of Pink Floyd acts which were technically very good but, sorry, I could have just put the CD on and turned it up loud.

    Glenn Hughes plays Deep Purple very well. OK he was a band member, but he can scream like Gillan (which Gillan no longer can)
    Covers bands are a massive YouTube rabbithole, where one can get lost for weeks. Some of them are exceptionally talented. Personally I prefer those who change the style of songs, or who add something to the performance.

    Three recent finds, all of whom have millions of followers:

    Postmodern Jukebox, an American jazz band who do old-style covers of modern pop songs.
    https://youtube.com/@postmodernjukebox

    Pentatonix, an acapella group that somehow give the impression of a full band playing.
    https://youtube.com/@PTXofficial

    2Cellos, just two guys with cellos. I actually saw them live last year, absolutely brilliant.
    https://youtube.com/@2CELLOSlive
    Post Modern Jukebox version of 'All about the bass' is excellent. Quite sexy.
    Yes, that’s very good.

    I like it when someone takes a song that I think is rubbish, and totally rearranges it into something brilliant.
    Here’s PMJ’s cover of Nicki Minaj’s Anaconda, in a style they describe as “vintage bluegrass hoedown”. Look out for the dog in the video, being played by the backing vocalist!
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ez-apj-Od1I
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,083
    AlsoLei said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.

    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
    Afghanistan - I think he took the necessary and tough decision (implemented poorly from a press perspective). We can see now that all our efforts to build an afghan state were largely useless and Taliban was taking over whenever US left.

    Pulling out has certainly helped free up resources to support Ukraine - I would say he has struck a good balance between defending Europe & not starting WWIII.

    Gaza is a disaster and Biden needs to change his policy.

    On the economy, he has managed to bring down inflation without crashing the economy. Economic growth is good. I'm particularly impressed we finally have a dem president who ignores Larry summers.
    The Afghanistan withdrawal policy was actually Trump's, wasn't it?

    I agree that it seems wise in retrospect - the second decade of the Afghan adventure was a dead loss from the west's POV. The plug really should have been pulled after the death of Bin Laden.
    They should have just left the Taliban in power in 2001 and paid the Pakistani ISI $1bn to kill OBL. Or toppled Musharraf and replaced him with a biddable general who would kill OBL the next time he set sandal in the FATA.

    Exactly the same result as we have now at 1/1000th of the cost.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,089

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Actually, this is an interesting question

    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.
    Western populations aren't too happy when people get wrongly imprisoned - see for instance the post office situation.
    We can start with the low hanging fruit: execute multiple murderers where there is no plausible doubt about their guilt.
    It amazes me how many people have seemingly never heard of Timothy Evans or the Birmingham Six.
    That's like arguing against vaccinations because some people will have fatal adverse events.

    Have you heard of Stephen Wright?
    If vaccinations had zero statistical efficacy, yes. It would be exactly comparable.
    Quite. I find the comparison extraordinary, as WG is demanding "no plausible doubt" - which is pretty much the assumption when some murderer is convicted, *by definition*, at the trial. Even when there was at at the time, never mind later.

    And I can't see why the unfortunate RC Bishop of Durham is being brought into the conversation.
    When you have a mass vaccination campaign, you know for a fact that a small percentage of people will die as a direct consequence.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65321937

    The death of a psychologist after his Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab was due to "unintended complications of the vaccine", an inquest has ruled.

    Stephen Wright, an NHS employee in south-east London, died 10 days after his first dose in January 2021, senior coroner Andrew Harris found.

    Dr Wright, 32, suffered a blood clot to the brain after receiving the vaccine.
    Given that the error rate in a murder trial is vastly higher, your comparison is not only crass but useless.
This discussion has been closed.