Personally I can"t be arsed to watch 2 hours of an interview with anyone. I watched a highlights video. I might have a longer version on in the background at some point. I don't think we can really see watching the whole thing all the wsy through as tbe yardstick of success for the initiative. But maybe I'm wrong.
And of course, a 'view', even a real one by a real person for the whole video doesn't mean anything.
There is a flat earther [1] called Nathan Oakley (shouldn't give him publicity really even mentioning him), who posts a daily video on YouTube. It gets less than 1,000 'views'.
Most of those views are bots, and the genuine ones, at least half of them are from scientists who then take pieces from his video to debunk them.
A YouTube view is meaningless. It tells you nothing about whether there is a person watching the video or not, and it tells you nothing about whether the person (if there are any) watching is for or against the video.
The New York Times is absolutely pounding Biden on the age issue. I do sense there is a move, in elite Democrat circles, to kick him upstairs, or downstairs, or just anystairs. They are now very worried
On the front page of the website there are four or five articles saying Fuckyeah this is bad, get rid of the old duffer, and just one short terse column trying to defend him (not very well)
Perhaps betting positions must be adjusted accordingly. The NYT is powerfully influential for Democrats
Biden is like Rishi. Everyone agrees he should stand down but no-one agrees on replacing him.
Perhaps
But this is the NYT turning on Biden. That's like the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Spectator turning on Rishi Sunak, all at once
It's not the NYT 'turning' at all. It's entirely consistent with their longstanding editorial stance.
The idea that the NYT is the Democrats house publication like the Telegraph is for the Tories is deluded.
I know people that work on the NYT. It is absolutely the Democrats' Journal of Record, and is the most influential legacy media voice in Democrat circles
Tho it is perhaps more like the Guardian vis a vis Labour (only more powerful), than the Telegraph vis a vis Tories
Who you know, and their motivations, are irrelevant. I'm talking about what they publish.
The New York Times is absolutely pounding Biden on the age issue. I do sense there is a move, in elite Democrat circles, to kick him upstairs, or downstairs, or just anystairs. They are now very worried
On the front page of the website there are four or five articles saying Fuckyeah this is bad, get rid of the old duffer, and just one short terse column trying to defend him (not very well)
Perhaps betting positions must be adjusted accordingly. The NYT is powerfully influential for Democrats
Biden is like Rishi. Everyone agrees he should stand down but no-one agrees on replacing him.
Perhaps
But this is the NYT turning on Biden. That's like the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Spectator turning on Rishi Sunak, all at once
It's not the NYT 'turning' at all. It's entirely consistent with their longstanding editorial stance.
The idea that the NYT is the Democrats house publication like the Telegraph is for the Tories is deluded.
Yup, it's the exact same setup as their Hillary emails coverage. Were they gunning for Hillary Clinton back then? Well, I'm sure they don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business but no, that's not what was happening.
I mean, this is just completely mad
Of course the NYT care if Trump gets elected. They really really really don't want him elected. I get that they are running a business and Trump is good box office, but they are also sincere about their Democrat, left of centre beliefs, and they are probably in actual fear of what Trump might do to them, if elected
You are the delusional one here, sorry. The NYT loathes and fears Donald Trump
Personally I can"t be arsed to watch 2 hours of an interview with anyone. I watched a highlights video. I might have a longer version on in the background at some point. I don't think we can really see watching the whole thing all the wsy through as tbe yardstick of success for the initiative. But maybe I'm wrong.
And of course, a 'view', even a real one by a real person for the whole video doesn't mean anything.
There is a flat earther [1] called Nathan Oakley (shouldn't give him publicity really even mentioning him), who posts a daily video on YouTube. It gets less than 1,000 'views'.
Most of those views are bots, and the genuine ones, at least half of them are from scientists who then take pieces from his video to debunk them.
A YouTube view is meaningless. It tells you nothing about whether there is a person watching the video or not, and it tells you nothing about whether the person (if there are any) watching is for or against the video.
Not true
A view means someone has 1. absorbed some of Putin's take on history and politics, and 2. added to Carlson's self-curated persona as maybe the most watched TV interviewer on the planet
All that is true even if you come way from the video thinking Putin is a nasty criminal and Carlson a narcissistic nincompoop (both arguable positions)
The New York Times is absolutely pounding Biden on the age issue. I do sense there is a move, in elite Democrat circles, to kick him upstairs, or downstairs, or just anystairs. They are now very worried
On the front page of the website there are four or five articles saying Fuckyeah this is bad, get rid of the old duffer, and just one short terse column trying to defend him (not very well)
Perhaps betting positions must be adjusted accordingly. The NYT is powerfully influential for Democrats
Biden is like Rishi. Everyone agrees he should stand down but no-one agrees on replacing him.
Perhaps
But this is the NYT turning on Biden. That's like the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Spectator turning on Rishi Sunak, all at once
It's not the NYT 'turning' at all. It's entirely consistent with their longstanding editorial stance.
The idea that the NYT is the Democrats house publication like the Telegraph is for the Tories is deluded.
Yup, it's the exact same setup as their Hillary emails coverage. Were they gunning for Hillary Clinton back then? Well, I'm sure they don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business but no, that's not what was happening.
I mean, this is just completely mad
Of course the NYT care if Trump gets elected. They really really really don't want him elected. I get that they are running a business and Trump is good box office, but they are also sincere about their Democrat, left of centre beliefs, and they are probably in actual fear of what Trump might do to them, if elected
You are the delusional one here, sorry. The NYT loathes and fears Donald Trump
And yet it consistently enables him.
Sorry, this is so nuts I need to get this straight
Are you and @edmundintokyo honestly arguing that the NYT doesn't give a fuck if Trump is elected, that they are kinda neutral on that, as he has his downsides but he's good for business?
Probably Carlson is happy with the extra publicity. He might not care that lots of it is bad publicity, but it hasn't done his claim to be a journalist much good.
But has the interview persuaded anyone that Putin is the good guy here? I doubt it. In that sense it fell flat.
And in real life I haven't seen any interest whatsoever, have you?
Even on here there is only a meta-argument about how big a deal the interview was, rather than any discussion of the interview itself.
The reality, of course, is that most of these things change minds very rarely.
MAGA isn't going to do anything other than continue to think Trump-Putin are the best thing since sliced bread. Democrats will continue to oppose Trump-Putin.
Maybe, just maybe, a few non-MAGA Republicans will think, "That Putin fellow is a bit unhinged. He spent thirty minutes talking about something called the Kievan Rus and Novgorod." It might sway them a little against.
I mean, excepting Europa Universalis fanatics, who here has heard of Kievan Rus and Novgorod?
That interview. The relevant context is that the Trump neo-fascists are pro Russia and anti-NATO. 2 hours of fawning as a preface for Trump asking Putin to do what he likes to Europe.
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
To be fair it’s becoming rapidly more difficult to be sympathetic with Israel. They seem to have done, or at least achieved, nothing whatsoever towards their stated aim of ‘getting the hostages back’ while at the same time slaughtering Palestinians. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a safe home for the Jewish people, and can well understand why they want it in Palestine. However the Palestinians were there legally and historically and indeed I suspect that many of them have at least as good a ‘historical’ and ‘genetic’ right to be there as many of the more recent ‘Jewish’ immigrants.
Yesterday's story of the six year old girl left dying in a burning car which the BBC ran all through the day really cut through to me.
Israel is largely engaged in mass murder now.......
The New York Times is absolutely pounding Biden on the age issue. I do sense there is a move, in elite Democrat circles, to kick him upstairs, or downstairs, or just anystairs. They are now very worried
On the front page of the website there are four or five articles saying Fuckyeah this is bad, get rid of the old duffer, and just one short terse column trying to defend him (not very well)
Perhaps betting positions must be adjusted accordingly. The NYT is powerfully influential for Democrats
Biden is like Rishi. Everyone agrees he should stand down but no-one agrees on replacing him.
Perhaps
But this is the NYT turning on Biden. That's like the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Spectator turning on Rishi Sunak, all at once
It's not the NYT 'turning' at all. It's entirely consistent with their longstanding editorial stance.
The idea that the NYT is the Democrats house publication like the Telegraph is for the Tories is deluded.
Yup, it's the exact same setup as their Hillary emails coverage. Were they gunning for Hillary Clinton back then? Well, I'm sure they don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business but no, that's not what was happening.
I mean, this is just completely mad
Of course the NYT care if Trump gets elected. They really really really don't want him elected. I get that they are running a business and Trump is good box office, but they are also sincere about their Democrat, left of centre beliefs, and they are probably in actual fear of what Trump might do to them, if elected
You are the delusional one here, sorry. The NYT loathes and fears Donald Trump
And yet it consistently enables him.
Sorry, this is so nuts I need to get this straight
Are you and @edmundintokyo honestly arguing that the NYT doesn't give a fuck if Trump is elected, that they are kinda neutral on that, as he has his downsides but he's good for business?
That is your position?
It's been a truism for years.
Why do you think the Twitter parody NYTpitchbot exists ?
Hard to speculate on their motivation, but if I had to, I'd say it's a warped sense of 'balance'.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
The New York Times is absolutely pounding Biden on the age issue. I do sense there is a move, in elite Democrat circles, to kick him upstairs, or downstairs, or just anystairs. They are now very worried
On the front page of the website there are four or five articles saying Fuckyeah this is bad, get rid of the old duffer, and just one short terse column trying to defend him (not very well)
Perhaps betting positions must be adjusted accordingly. The NYT is powerfully influential for Democrats
Biden is like Rishi. Everyone agrees he should stand down but no-one agrees on replacing him.
Perhaps
But this is the NYT turning on Biden. That's like the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Spectator turning on Rishi Sunak, all at once
It's not the NYT 'turning' at all. It's entirely consistent with their longstanding editorial stance.
The idea that the NYT is the Democrats house publication like the Telegraph is for the Tories is deluded.
Yup, it's the exact same setup as their Hillary emails coverage. Were they gunning for Hillary Clinton back then? Well, I'm sure they don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business but no, that's not what was happening.
I mean, this is just completely mad
Of course the NYT care if Trump gets elected. They really really really don't want him elected. I get that they are running a business and Trump is good box office, but they are also sincere about their Democrat, left of centre beliefs, and they are probably in actual fear of what Trump might do to them, if elected
You are the delusional one here, sorry. The NYT loathes and fears Donald Trump
And yet it consistently enables him.
Sorry, this is so nuts I need to get this straight
Are you and @edmundintokyo honestly arguing that the NYT doesn't give a fuck if Trump is elected, that they are kinda neutral on that, as he has his downsides but he's good for business?
That is your position?
It's been a truism for years.
Why do you think the Twitter parody NYTpitchbot exists ?
Hard to speculate on their motivation, but if I had to, I'd say it's a warped sense of 'balance'.
So today I learned you're an idiot, with a dash of flat earth conspiracist, likewise @edmundintokyo
Carlson/Putin: Boris is still trending on TwiX with the revelation that it was Boris who prevented a peaceful end to the Russia/Ukraine kerfuffle. Here is one such post (with 45-second video clip boosting Carlson's viewing figures):
Vladimir Putin claims he was ready to end war 18 months ago but Boris Johnson scuppered deal by telling Ukraine leaders it was 'better to fight Russia' https://twitter.com/i/status/1756508944728826361
But the claim is rubbish, as has been shown before.
It's a bit of a litmus test, really: the people who believe this are the people who are so down the BDS hole that they believe Putin over Boris.
Yes it’s surely rubbish. I can believe Boris was out there giving them some oomph, it’s what he does, but beyond that…
I read an interesting take the other day. The pro-Putin western hard right are weirdly like the pro-hamas far left - ‘queers for Palestine’ makes as much sense as American nationalists for Putin. Putin clearly detests and fears America, he wouldn’t make exceptions for American nutters in bullhorn helmets
It's also a case of the horsehoe effect at work. Trump, Carlson, Lauren Boebert, Scott Ritter, RFK, Noam Chomsky are all on the same side.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
That interview. The relevant context is that the Trump neo-fascists are pro Russia and anti-NATO. 2 hours of fawning as a preface for Trump asking Putin to do what he likes to Europe.
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
Trump also suggested it would be a good thing if Putin attacked NATO countries which weren't spending enough on defence.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
He’d be a gift to Trump in the swing states . Whitmer is the candidate that would have the best chance . Being from a swing state and she’s tough and likeable .
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
There's a new study out in the likelihood if the collapse of the AMOC. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds ..Until now there has been no consensus about how severe this will be. One study last year, based on changes in sea surface temperatures, suggested the tipping point could happen between 2025 and 2095. However, the UK Met Office said large, rapid changes in Amoc were “very unlikely” in the 21st century.
The new paper, published in Science Advances, has broken new ground by looking for warning signs in the salinity levels at the southern extent of the Atlantic Ocean between Cape Town and Buenos Aires. Simulating changes over a period of 2,000 years on computer models of the global climate, it found a slow decline can lead to a sudden collapse over less than 100 years, with calamitous consequences.
The paper said the results provided a “clear answer” about whether such an abrupt shift was possible: “This is bad news for the climate system and humanity as up till now one could think that Amoc tipping was only a theoretical concept and tipping would disappear as soon as the full climate system, with all its additional feedbacks, was considered.”..
Whether we'll live to see this is a matter if doubt; it's not unlikely our children or grandchildren will.
There was a Horizon programme between 25 and 30 years ago which predicted, with the reduction in salinity through the melting of the fresh water Arctic and Antarctic ice caps the escalator would stop and the gulf stream die. It suggested we would have a climate similar to Sweden and Finland. IIRC it also proposed that as a result we would migrate South. Although of course with Brexit that can no longer happen. So enjoy the snow!
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
The owners, or the dogs? (Or both?)
both would be fine by me
A good piece by Dom Cummings' wife about how she changed her mind about XL Bullies. She was pro Bully and anti-ban, until her young and only child met one on the Tube. Unmuzzled
You really do have to see these monsters in the flesh to see how dangerous they are
I also didn't realise the stupid owner of those dogs in Jaywick has now said THIS:
"Oddly, in all the arguments for and against XL Bullys over the past week, the person I’ve found most sensible is Ashley Warren, owner of the killer dogs. ‘I did not know Bullys were aggressive, I didn’t believe all this stuff,’ he said. ‘But now I’ve learned the hard way. I honestly thought the ban was a stupid government plan to wipe out a breed which I had never seen anything but softness and love from. Now I think they need to be wiped out.’"
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
The advice in the Mail was absurd - "sacrifice a leg in order to protect your head and neck"
Vaguely on topic, Khan is of course taking nothing for granted and will campaign hard. Hall will rely on traditional Conservative strength in the Outer Boroughs and possibilities of abstentions and Labour splits over Gaza in Inner London to get her over the line.
This isn't 2021 but Uxbridge showed there's life in the Conservatives in the Outer Suburbs even if the locals in 2022 had been a distinctly mixed bag for the Party. Whether, if we are to believe @MoonRabbit and the London Mayoral Election will, for the first time, be on the same day as a GE, I'm not sure but that's more likely to drive higher turnout which will hurt Hall.
In Newham, Labour have lost two by-elections in recent times and the strength of pro-Palestinian feeling in some parts of the Borough is unmistakeable with Palestine flags on lamp posts. Whether the self styled Newham Independents will run a GE candidate in East Ham I don't know but a London Mayoral candidate advocating a similar line could draw significant support from Khan.
Taking November 2023 polls as gospel is ridiculous and back in 2021 the polls were very poor. Both YouGov and Savanta, who did fieldwork on the three days before polling, reported 12-point leads for Khan and in the end Khan won the first round by less than five. I'm not certain what happened - the Conservatives actually won one Ward in Newham in the Mayoral race and in the East Ham Central by election, the Conservative candidate polled 30% which was remarkable. Did Labour voters just abstain or did the pollsters just not see a groundswell of Conservative support in the last days of the contest?
That was then and this is now, as a wise man once opined. London Labour has a lot of problems but London Conservatives are also in a bad place compared to 2021. The race remains Khan's to lose.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
The New York Times is absolutely pounding Biden on the age issue. I do sense there is a move, in elite Democrat circles, to kick him upstairs, or downstairs, or just anystairs. They are now very worried
On the front page of the website there are four or five articles saying Fuckyeah this is bad, get rid of the old duffer, and just one short terse column trying to defend him (not very well)
Perhaps betting positions must be adjusted accordingly. The NYT is powerfully influential for Democrats
Biden is like Rishi. Everyone agrees he should stand down but no-one agrees on replacing him.
Perhaps
But this is the NYT turning on Biden. That's like the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Spectator turning on Rishi Sunak, all at once
It's not the NYT 'turning' at all. It's entirely consistent with their longstanding editorial stance.
The idea that the NYT is the Democrats house publication like the Telegraph is for the Tories is deluded.
Yup, it's the exact same setup as their Hillary emails coverage. Were they gunning for Hillary Clinton back then? Well, I'm sure they don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business but no, that's not what was happening.
I mean, this is just completely mad
Of course the NYT care if Trump gets elected. They really really really don't want him elected. I get that they are running a business and Trump is good box office, but they are also sincere about their Democrat, left of centre beliefs, and they are probably in actual fear of what Trump might do to them, if elected
You are the delusional one here, sorry. The NYT loathes and fears Donald Trump
And yet it consistently enables him.
Sorry, this is so nuts I need to get this straight
Are you and @edmundintokyo honestly arguing that the NYT doesn't give a fuck if Trump is elected, that they are kinda neutral on that, as he has his downsides but he's good for business?
That is your position?
It's been a truism for years.
Why do you think the Twitter parody NYTpitchbot exists ?
Hard to speculate on their motivation, but if I had to, I'd say it's a warped sense of 'balance'.
So today I learned you're an idiot, with a dash of flat earth conspiracist, likewise @edmundintokyo
Good to know
What conspiracy ? It's just that they are not very good at journalism.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
I'd put Staffordshire Bull Terriers on the list. The West Midland drug dealer's weapon of choice.
That would resolve the issue of " is it really an XL Bully?"
The NYT still has "Why age issue is hurting Biden" as a headline above this.
Yes, they are definitely gunning for Biden. Actual senior columnists saying Biden has to go
There is just one terse column from Paul Krugman trying to defend him, but it is feeble and doesn't persuade, and has been hidden away
There’s still very little the Democratic establishment can do at this point. The one who decides is Biden (absent a 25th amendment scenario that seems fanciful unless he really loses it). At this stage, it seems he is determined to run.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
That interview. The relevant context is that the Trump neo-fascists are pro Russia and anti-NATO. 2 hours of fawning as a preface for Trump asking Putin to do what he likes to Europe.
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
Trump also suggested it would be a good thing if Putin attacked NATO countries which weren't spending enough on defence.
As Politico notes, it also confirms what de Leyen reported he told her four years ago.
Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says ‘By the way NATO is dead,’ the former (and potential future) US president added in private meeting. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/ .."You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO," Trump also said, according to Breton. "And he added, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense,'" Breton said about the tense meeting, where the EU's then-trade chief Phil Hogan was also present...
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
The NYT still has "Why age issue is hurting Biden" as a headline above this.
Yes, they are definitely gunning for Biden. Actual senior columnists saying Biden has to go
There is just one terse column from Paul Krugman trying to defend him, but it is feeble and doesn't persuade, and has been hidden away
There’s still very little the Democratic establishment can do at this point. The one who decides is Biden (absent a 25th amendment scenario that seems fanciful unless he really loses it). At this stage, it seems he is determined to run.
Yes, I'm not sure the NYT campaign will work, but it seems to me the editors have decided to try and boot him off, if they can, because he is so likely to lose to Trump
And, despite the opinions of @Nigelb and @edmundintokyo I believe the NYT is absolutely sincere in its dread and hatred of Trump, and want him defeated more than anything
There's a new study out in the likelihood if the collapse of the AMOC. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds ..Until now there has been no consensus about how severe this will be. One study last year, based on changes in sea surface temperatures, suggested the tipping point could happen between 2025 and 2095. However, the UK Met Office said large, rapid changes in Amoc were “very unlikely” in the 21st century.
The new paper, published in Science Advances, has broken new ground by looking for warning signs in the salinity levels at the southern extent of the Atlantic Ocean between Cape Town and Buenos Aires. Simulating changes over a period of 2,000 years on computer models of the global climate, it found a slow decline can lead to a sudden collapse over less than 100 years, with calamitous consequences.
The paper said the results provided a “clear answer” about whether such an abrupt shift was possible: “This is bad news for the climate system and humanity as up till now one could think that Amoc tipping was only a theoretical concept and tipping would disappear as soon as the full climate system, with all its additional feedbacks, was considered.”..
Whether we'll live to see this is a matter if doubt; it's not unlikely our children or grandchildren will.
Over on Netweather there are much more informed discussions about the impact of climate change.
I make the same level of amateurish contribution there I do here - I was musing on the absence of fog this winter while most were annoyed at the lack of snow. There's plenty of evidence a warmer atmosphere generates more energy, more movement and greater instability.
Some have discussed the expansion of the Hadley Cell and others the rising Sea Surface Temperatures and what impact these might have.
My personal view is the European climate will move toward something more akin to the Indian Sub-Continent today with significant monsoon type rainfgall episodes offset by stronger heatwaves and drought conditions. Those seeking solace from the heat of the cities will head to places like the Swedish and Finnish Lakes, our Lake District and northern Scotland. In 100 years, the Northern Scottish coast will be the place to go on holiday - if anyone had any sense they'd be developing transport links to the far north and the northern and western isles. There are beaches on Harris and Lewis which are spectacular now but currently hardly visited.
The NYT still has "Why age issue is hurting Biden" as a headline above this.
Yes, they are definitely gunning for Biden. Actual senior columnists saying Biden has to go
There is just one terse column from Paul Krugman trying to defend him, but it is feeble and doesn't persuade, and has been hidden away
There’s still very little the Democratic establishment can do at this point. The one who decides is Biden (absent a 25th amendment scenario that seems fanciful unless he really loses it). At this stage, it seems he is determined to run.
Yes, I'm not sure the NYT campaign will work, but it seems to me the editors have decided to try and boot him off, if they can, because he is so likely to lose to Trump
And, despite the opinions of @Nigelb and @edmundintokyo I believe the NYT is absolutely sincere in its dread and hatred of Trump, and want him defeated more than anything
When did I say they aren't ?
Their beliefs are irrelevant. The headlines they publish are what matters.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Vaguely on topic, Khan is of course taking nothing for granted and will campaign hard. Hall will rely on traditional Conservative strength in the Outer Boroughs and possibilities of abstentions and Labour splits over Gaza in Inner London to get her over the line.
This isn't 2021 but Uxbridge showed there's life in the Conservatives in the Outer Suburbs even if the locals in 2022 had been a distinctly mixed bag for the Party. Whether, if we are to believe @MoonRabbit and the London Mayoral Election will, for the first time, be on the same day as a GE, I'm not sure but that's more likely to drive higher turnout which will hurt Hall.
In Newham, Labour have lost two by-elections in recent times and the strength of pro-Palestinian feeling in some parts of the Borough is unmistakeable with Palestine flags on lamp posts. Whether the self styled Newham Independents will run a GE candidate in East Ham I don't know but a London Mayoral candidate advocating a similar line could draw significant support from Khan.
Taking November 2023 polls as gospel is ridiculous and back in 2021 the polls were very poor. Both YouGov and Savanta, who did fieldwork on the three days before polling, reported 12-point leads for Khan and in the end Khan won the first round by less than five. I'm not certain what happened - the Conservatives actually won one Ward in Newham in the Mayoral race and in the East Ham Central by election, the Conservative candidate polled 30% which was remarkable. Did Labour voters just abstain or did the pollsters just not see a groundswell of Conservative support in the last days of the contest?
That was then and this is now, as a wise man once opined. London Labour has a lot of problems but London Conservatives are also in a bad place compared to 2021. The race remains Khan's to lose.
It's odd that there haven't been any more recent polls.
(Possibly not that odd- the Standard is rapidly dying as an actual newspaper and why waste money on polling when the headline is so obvious?)
The last London election was peak Vaccine Bounce, which is a long time ago now.
Hall would have needed a lot of things to fall her way; a better national picture, someone like Jez standing as a spoiler on the left, ULEZ still being a live issue. On those counts, she's 3-0 down.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
Tents and Mexicans would be the MAGA attack lines.
That interview. The relevant context is that the Trump neo-fascists are pro Russia and anti-NATO. 2 hours of fawning as a preface for Trump asking Putin to do what he likes to Europe.
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
Trump also suggested it would be a good thing if Putin attacked NATO countries which weren't spending enough on defence.
It's that 'art of the deal' schtick again. Donald Trump the big big man who intimidates and runs rings round everybody by being incredibly smart and tough. Manhattan real estate, big ticket geopolitics, it makes no difference. Always 'winning'. Always 'beating' people. It's infantile but one of his most effective lines of appeal. Most of his supporters are quite simple people and they buy it.
The NYT still has "Why age issue is hurting Biden" as a headline above this.
Yes, they are definitely gunning for Biden. Actual senior columnists saying Biden has to go
There is just one terse column from Paul Krugman trying to defend him, but it is feeble and doesn't persuade, and has been hidden away
There’s still very little the Democratic establishment can do at this point. The one who decides is Biden (absent a 25th amendment scenario that seems fanciful unless he really loses it). At this stage, it seems he is determined to run.
Yes, I'm not sure the NYT campaign will work, but it seems to me the editors have decided to try and boot him off, if they can, because he is so likely to lose to Trump
And, despite the opinions of @Nigelb and @edmundintokyo I believe the NYT is absolutely sincere in its dread and hatred of Trump, and want him defeated more than anything
When did I say they aren't ?
Their beliefs are irrelevant. The headlines they publish are what matters.
I'll try and explain it in short words. They are publishing a lot of anti-Biden stuff because they are now shit-scared Biden is so gaga he will lose to Trump, and they really don't want Trump to win.
It's not because, as your comrade @edmundintokyo put it: "they [the NYT] don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business"
Vaguely on topic, Khan is of course taking nothing for granted and will campaign hard. Hall will rely on traditional Conservative strength in the Outer Boroughs and possibilities of abstentions and Labour splits over Gaza in Inner London to get her over the line.
This isn't 2021 but Uxbridge showed there's life in the Conservatives in the Outer Suburbs even if the locals in 2022 had been a distinctly mixed bag for the Party. Whether, if we are to believe @MoonRabbit and the London Mayoral Election will, for the first time, be on the same day as a GE, I'm not sure but that's more likely to drive higher turnout which will hurt Hall.
In Newham, Labour have lost two by-elections in recent times and the strength of pro-Palestinian feeling in some parts of the Borough is unmistakeable with Palestine flags on lamp posts. Whether the self styled Newham Independents will run a GE candidate in East Ham I don't know but a London Mayoral candidate advocating a similar line could draw significant support from Khan.
Taking November 2023 polls as gospel is ridiculous and back in 2021 the polls were very poor. Both YouGov and Savanta, who did fieldwork on the three days before polling, reported 12-point leads for Khan and in the end Khan won the first round by less than five. I'm not certain what happened - the Conservatives actually won one Ward in Newham in the Mayoral race and in the East Ham Central by election, the Conservative candidate polled 30% which was remarkable. Did Labour voters just abstain or did the pollsters just not see a groundswell of Conservative support in the last days of the contest?
That was then and this is now, as a wise man once opined. London Labour has a lot of problems but London Conservatives are also in a bad place compared to 2021. The race remains Khan's to lose.
It's odd that there haven't been any more recent polls.
(Possibly not that odd- the Standard is rapidly dying as an actual newspaper and why waste money on polling when the headline is so obvious?)
The last London election was peak Vaccine Bounce, which is a long time ago now.
Hall would have needed a lot of things to fall her way; a better national picture, someone like Jez standing as a spoiler on the left, ULEZ still being a live issue. On those counts, she's 3-0 down.
Plus, she is a bit of a nitwit.
I know as little of her platform as I did Bailey's. My recollection of 2021 was Bailey answering almost every question with "I'll recruit more Police". Now, crime is a concern in London as elsewhere and unfortunately one of the Coalition's more halfbaked ideas was to sell off operational Police stations (enthusiastically supported by the then Mayor).
This site is going totally fingers in the ears again. You might think Carlson a lick spittle, Putin mysteriously dull for a modern day genocidist and be (correctly) sceptical that 189million haven’t watched a full 2 hour political interview (via interpreter) but only snippets.
But that doesn’t detract from this being a milestone moment in media history, nor is it an irrelevance for the congressional passage of the military aid bill and November elections.
After the story of the six year old girl in the taxi that led the BBC news and the brilliant report 'from our own cotrrespondent' you'd have to be pretty sick to continue supporting Netanyahu or Israel in any shape or form. Yesterday's pictures of the blown out ambulence with it's two paramedics dead inside just made it even more unbearable.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Basically, if you've watched even a moment of Carlson's interview with Putin that validates the argument it's an important event whereas if you've not watched it you're out of touch with the world and what's happening.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
"The NYT article" is an opinion piece by Douthat, a Republican. What he wants to do is to damage Joe Biden, the Democratic president, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic VP who would almost definitely get the nomination if Joe Biden decided not to run. His specific suggestion, which I'm sure is totally intended to be helpful, is that Biden retire but not endorse Kamala Harris and leave it to convention floor votes to decide, which would likely result in Kamala Harris getting the nomination anyhow. At this point Douthat would write a column about how the Democratic VP didn't have the confidence of the president she'd just been serving under.
This site is going totally fingers in the ears again. You might think Carlson a lick spittle, Putin mysteriously dull for a modern day genocidist and be (correctly) sceptical that 189million haven’t watched a full 2 hour political interview (via interpreter) but only snippets.
But that doesn’t detract from this being a milestone moment in media history, nor is it an irrelevance for the congressional passage of the military aid bill and November elections.
Again, it's the weird lack of nuance. PB didn't used to be this dim, did it?
But I have moaned about this enough
I am determined to play nicely, seeing as I am totally reliant on PB for social intercourse until I can get the fuck out of dodge. I love you all!
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
Personally I can"t be arsed to watch 2 hours of an interview with anyone. I watched a highlights video. I might have a longer version on in the background at some point. I don't think we can really see watching the whole thing all the wsy through as tbe yardstick of success for the initiative. But maybe I'm wrong.
That the interview occurred at all is newsworthy but we are in dog walking on its hindlegs territory. There does not seem to be much that has come out of it. Perhaps after Putin blamed Boris for sabotaging peace, Carlson should have asked if the same terms are still on the table. (Maybe he did, I've not watched it, but we'd have heard by now.)
Who gives a monkey's chuff. 2 hours of a mental murdering despot, being butt licked by a thick publicity hungry American crapbag, as he talks verbal diahorrea. I would not even deign to look at a headline about it, by morons for morons.
Yet you seem quite keen to talk about it. Odd
No, you're talking about it incessantly. Giving others the invidious choice between ignoring your return to shilling for Putin, after a couple of years' off, or responding to your hysterical drivel in which case you accuse the respondent of being the one who is obsessed. Which is as transparent and pitiful a tactic as hell.
Interesting piece - and rather more nuanced than Ms Braverman's and Mr 30p Anderson's assertions, which were based on some curious anecdata:
'On Thursday, a former C of E priest claimed the church was complicit in a “conveyor belt and veritable industry of asylum baptisms”. Matthew Firth, who was a priest in the north of England, told the Telegraph that about 20 asylum seekers had sought baptisms at his church to support their applications, and he believed there were “probably” thousands of asylum baptisms in the C of E.
Paul Butler, the bishop of Durham, has said Firth’s claims were “imaginative” and “some distance from reality”.
In a statement, Butler said: “Mr Firth does not offer any evidence to support these claims, however a check of the parish records quickly reveals … a total of 15 people (13 adults, 2 infants) who may have been asylum seekers have been baptised over the past 10 years. Of these, seven were baptised by Mr Firth himself.
“As priest in charge, he will have been aware of his responsibility to check the authenticity of candidates. If there was any sign of anything amiss, Mr Firth should have reported this. Had he raised any concerns at any point with senior staff … they would of course have been taken seriously and investigated. He did not do so.”'
Though, of course, 'seek' is not the same as 'actually be baptised'.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
"The NYT article" is an opinion piece by Douthat, a Republican. What he wants to do is to damage Joe Biden, the Democratic president, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic VP who would almost definitely get the nomination if Joe Biden decided not to run. His specific suggestion, which I'm intended to be totally helpful, is that Biden retire but not endorse Kamala Harris and leave it to convention floor votes to decide, which would likely result in Kamala Harris getting the nomination anyhow. At this point Douthat would write a column about how the Democratic VP didn't have the confidence of the president she'd just been serving under.
Yes, but you literally believe "the New York Times doesn't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business"
So I think it's best if 1. we ignore you on this point and/or 2. perhaps you should talk about something else?
There were major security failings in Israel which Hamas identified and ruthlessly exploited. Once the fighting in Gaza is over I wonder if anyone in Israel will go back and ask why this was allowed to happen and seek accountability from those supposedly responsible for the nation's security.
Did we, for example, ever ask how our defences got into such a condition in the late 1930s the German Army was able to end up conquering western Europe in a few weeks and German aircraft were able to punitively attack British towns and cities? I suspect not.
In the relief of things turning out right we rarely ask how they went wrong in the first place - the four questions which should always be asked are what happened and why did it happen followed by what might have happened and why did it not? The last two take a lot longer than the first two.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
Yes, it is interesting that the government has played the Israel/Palestine issue with far more nuance than Labour, calling for pauses and a two-state solution while supporting Israel. As elsewhere, Starmer seems leaden-footed.
Yes, the govt has got many things wrong but seems to be doing better on Gaza than labour. The govt is a critical friend of the Israeli govt, Labour is a just a devotee of Likud.
The current BBC lead story records objections from Britain, Europe and America. Surely that provides enough political cover for Starmer to say something, anything.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
Fine by me, but you'll have to run it by Smithson Junior, as he was the one who kicked off this debate yesterday by saying I had been proven wrong and Tucker Putin was a flop, a disaster, no one watched it, which, as we now know, is shite
Otherwise, yes, let's move on
Tho there is that really weird moment at about 1 hour 32 in the interview.... but I want to turn that into a Gazette piece so mum's the word!
After the story of the six year old girl in the taxi that led the BBC news and the brilliant report 'from our own cotrrespondent' you'd have to be pretty sick to continue supporting Netanyahu or Israel in any shape or form. Yesterday's pictures of the blown out ambulence with it's two paramedics dead inside just made it even more unbearable.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
Support for Israel on this is down to those who don't view Palestinians as proper 3d human beings.
Intderestingly, three months notice is required in Scotland, but south of the border you can be cancelled dentally just like that *snaps fingers*.
A curious comment: 'A Commons’ health select committee report published in July recommended the government require patients to be registered with an NHS dentist. The government has said it has no plans to introduce official patient registration for dental services, because the current model allows “greater choice and flexibility for patients”.'
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
Personally I can"t be arsed to watch 2 hours of an interview with anyone. I watched a highlights video. I might have a longer version on in the background at some point. I don't think we can really see watching the whole thing all the wsy through as tbe yardstick of success for the initiative. But maybe I'm wrong.
That the interview occurred at all is newsworthy but we are in dog walking on its hindlegs territory. There does not seem to be much that has come out of it. Perhaps after Putin blamed Boris for sabotaging peace, Carlson should have asked if the same terms are still on the table. (Maybe he did, I've not watched it, but we'd have heard by now.)
Who gives a monkey's chuff. 2 hours of a mental murdering despot, being butt licked by a thick publicity hungry American crapbag, as he talks verbal diahorrea. I would not even deign to look at a headline about it, by morons for morons.
Yet you seem quite keen to talk about it. Odd
No, you're talking about it incessantly. Giving others the invidious choice between ignoring your return to shilling for Putin, after a couple of years' off, or responding to your hysterical drivel in which case you accuse the respondent of being the one who is obsessed. Which is as transparent and pitiful a tactic as hell.
Yes Leon is justifying how much chatter there is on PB over the Carlson-Putin love-in when every third post is Leon waxing lyrical over Carlson fellating Putin over on YouTube. And posters then feeling the need to call Leon out for his nonsense is according to Leon enthusiasm for the interview.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
As I pointed out the other day, making them illegal means that, under the sentencing guidelines you are in the High Culpability column.
Which means if your dog kills someone you can get 14 years - the sentencing *starts* at 8 years.
This will end with a number of people get the maximum.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
"The NYT article" is an opinion piece by Douthat, a Republican. What he wants to do is to damage Joe Biden, the Democratic president, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic VP who would almost definitely get the nomination if Joe Biden decided not to run. His specific suggestion, which I'm intended to be totally helpful, is that Biden retire but not endorse Kamala Harris and leave it to convention floor votes to decide, which would likely result in Kamala Harris getting the nomination anyhow. At this point Douthat would write a column about how the Democratic VP didn't have the confidence of the president she'd just been serving under.
Yes, but you literally believe "the New York Times doesn't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business"
So I think it's best if 1. we ignore you on this point and/or 2. perhaps you should talk about something else?
'Yes but' I'll ignore the point you just made and talk about something else. You can argue with edmundintokyo about what the NYT 'believes' as much as you like, but it's irrelevant.
What matters is what they publish, and your assertion that it's comparable to the way in which the Telegraph operates is simply risible.
This site is going totally fingers in the ears again. You might think Carlson a lick spittle, Putin mysteriously dull for a modern day genocidist and be (correctly) sceptical that 189million haven’t watched a full 2 hour political interview (via interpreter) but only snippets.
But that doesn’t detract from this being a milestone moment in media history, nor is it an irrelevance for the congressional passage of the military aid bill and November elections.
DM coming for you, would like your opinion on something
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
Personally I can"t be arsed to watch 2 hours of an interview with anyone. I watched a highlights video. I might have a longer version on in the background at some point. I don't think we can really see watching the whole thing all the wsy through as tbe yardstick of success for the initiative. But maybe I'm wrong.
That the interview occurred at all is newsworthy but we are in dog walking on its hindlegs territory. There does not seem to be much that has come out of it. Perhaps after Putin blamed Boris for sabotaging peace, Carlson should have asked if the same terms are still on the table. (Maybe he did, I've not watched it, but we'd have heard by now.)
Who gives a monkey's chuff. 2 hours of a mental murdering despot, being butt licked by a thick publicity hungry American crapbag, as he talks verbal diahorrea. I would not even deign to look at a headline about it, by morons for morons.
Yet you seem quite keen to talk about it. Odd
No, you're talking about it incessantly. Giving others the invidious choice between ignoring your return to shilling for Putin, after a couple of years' off, or responding to your hysterical drivel in which case you accuse the respondent of being the one who is obsessed. Which is as transparent and pitiful a tactic as hell.
Yes Leon is justifying how much chatter there is on PB over the Carlson-Putin love-in when every third post is Leon waxing lyrical over Carlson fellating Putin over on YouTube. And posters then feeling the need to call Leon out for his nonsense is according to Leon enthusiasm for the interview.
That interview. The relevant context is that the Trump neo-fascists are pro Russia and anti-NATO. 2 hours of fawning as a preface for Trump asking Putin to do what he likes to Europe.
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
Trump also suggested it would be a good thing if Putin attacked NATO countries which weren't spending enough on defence.
It's that 'art of the deal' schtick again. Donald Trump the big big man who intimidates and runs rings round everybody by being incredibly smart and tough. Manhattan real estate, big ticket geopolitics, it makes no difference. Always 'winning'. Always 'beating' people. It's infantile but one of his most effective lines of appeal. Most of his supporters are quite simple people and they buy it.
I don't want to be 'pro-Trump', but one way of looking at this is that it is selling NATO to his followers. It sets out a vision. Obviously though it is flawed, because some countries are more at risk of attack than others, in many cases however there is a strategic interest in having them in the alliance, despite the relatively low GDP contibution, but that line of thinking is a bit too complex in this type of debate. As a general principle the 'NATO as a protectorate' idea is pretty sound and better than it being a fading legacy of the cold war with people being uncertain about what it is.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
"The NYT article" is an opinion piece by Douthat, a Republican. What he wants to do is to damage Joe Biden, the Democratic president, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic VP who would almost definitely get the nomination if Joe Biden decided not to run. His specific suggestion, which I'm intended to be totally helpful, is that Biden retire but not endorse Kamala Harris and leave it to convention floor votes to decide, which would likely result in Kamala Harris getting the nomination anyhow. At this point Douthat would write a column about how the Democratic VP didn't have the confidence of the president she'd just been serving under.
Yes, but you literally believe "the New York Times doesn't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business"
So I think it's best if 1. we ignore you on this point and/or 2. perhaps you should talk about something else?
'Yes but' I'll ignore the point you just made and talk about something else. You can argue with edmundintokyo about what the NYT 'believes' as much as you like, but it's irrelevant.
What matters is what they publish, and your assertion that it's comparable to the way in which the Telegraph operates is simply risible.
Another outing for that most insidious of bad faith arguing techniques - the False Equivalence.
The Guardian = The Express. CH4 = GBNews. Insurrection and Election Denial 2020 = Talking about Russian interference 2016. Etc etc.
It's not exclusive to the Right but they are the specialists in the area.
Looks a bit like the Open Newham website in style and content.
East Ham has 43% of the electorate identifiying as Muslim which puts it third in the country but Stephen Timms voted for a ceasefire in Gaza which will help him a little.
Just to note it's not all Labour constituencies - there are at least seven Conservative MPs who voted against a Gaza ceasefire on the list.
Intderestingly, three months notice is required in Scotland, but south of the border you can be cancelled dentally just like that *snaps fingers*.
A curious comment: 'A Commons’ health select committee report published in July recommended the government require patients to be registered with an NHS dentist. The government has said it has no plans to introduce official patient registration for dental services, because the current model allows “greater choice and flexibility for patients”.'
I'm sold. This could be the keystone issue Labour base a campaign on. Pervasive, tangible, representative of a wider malaise. If the NHS can't sort your teeth out...
Also an issue in Scotland so you can bash both opponents with it without it being a left-right issue.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
Yes, of course, that's why no one is talking about it. It's basically just me. And every single news outlet on the planet. And Boris Johnson. And Justin Trudeau. And the white House Press Secretary. And Zelensky. And and and
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
As I pointed out the other day, making them illegal means that, under the sentencing guidelines you are in the High Culpability column.
Which means if your dog kills someone you can get 14 years - the sentencing *starts* at 8 years.
This will end with a number of people get the maximum.
It's not an effective solution to the problem at all, is it? Owners will still want to keep their dogs for whatever irrational reason (love of the animal, for protection/intimidation, for status, or simply because they don't like being told what to do by the state), people will still be attacked, maimed, and killed, and our prisons will continue to overflow with former dog owners at the tax payers expense.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
Yes, of course, that's why no one is talking about it. It's basically just me. And every single news outlet on the planet. And Boris Johnson. And Justin Trudeau. And the white House Press Secretary. And Zelensky. And and and
As a matter of interest, did you learn anything from the interview? If so, what?
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
"The NYT article" is an opinion piece by Douthat, a Republican. What he wants to do is to damage Joe Biden, the Democratic president, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic VP who would almost definitely get the nomination if Joe Biden decided not to run. His specific suggestion, which I'm intended to be totally helpful, is that Biden retire but not endorse Kamala Harris and leave it to convention floor votes to decide, which would likely result in Kamala Harris getting the nomination anyhow. At this point Douthat would write a column about how the Democratic VP didn't have the confidence of the president she'd just been serving under.
Yes, but you literally believe "the New York Times doesn't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business"
So I think it's best if 1. we ignore you on this point and/or 2. perhaps you should talk about something else?
'Yes but' I'll ignore the point you just made and talk about something else. You can argue with edmundintokyo about what the NYT 'believes' as much as you like, but it's irrelevant.
What matters is what they publish, and your assertion that it's comparable to the way in which the Telegraph operates is simply risible.
Er, @edmundintokyo is talking about the New York Times, in the comment to which I respond, but he has just asserted that "the New York Times doesn't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business", which is a clearly insane statement, rendering all his opinions on the NYT worthless (and you seem to agree with him, in part?)
It's like if I started blatting on about rugby. and claimed the All Blacks generally try to lose; you'd stop listening to me about rugby, and rightly so
I've just seen a clip of Gavin Newsom being interviewed about the election campaign. I didn't really know who he was until this morning - other than being a Democrat whose odds are pretty short to be the Democratic POTUS nominee. I now know he is Governor of California, articulate, likeable and photogenic. He is 9-9.6 on Betfair for the nomination and 14.5-15 for the Presidency.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
This is why not:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
Starting Jan. 1, all undocumented immigrants, regardless of age, will qualify for Medi-Cal, California's version of the federal Medicaid program for people with low incomes.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
Yes, of course, that's why no one is talking about it. It's basically just me. And every single news outlet on the planet. And Boris Johnson. And Justin Trudeau. And the white House Press Secretary. And Zelensky. And and and
As a matter of interest, did you learn anything from the interview? If so, what?
Yes, lots of stuff
But, if I talk about it, I'll be accused of talking about it, to prove that people are talking about it, by the PB geniuses, so what can I do?
This site is going totally fingers in the ears again. You might think Carlson a lick spittle, Putin mysteriously dull for a modern day genocidist and be (correctly) sceptical that 189million haven’t watched a full 2 hour political interview (via interpreter) but only snippets.
But that doesn’t detract from this being a milestone moment in media history, nor is it an irrelevance for the congressional passage of the military aid bill and November elections.
Again, it's the weird lack of nuance. PB didn't used to be this dim, did it?
But I have moaned about this enough
I am determined to play nicely, seeing as I am totally reliant on PB for social intercourse until I can get the fuck out of dodge. I love you all!
Well that is a promise broken in just under 24 hours isn't it?
You also relentlessly complain about people being obsessed with you when they react to your posts in frustration even if only very occasionally eg @malcolmg today, yet when something like 50% of the post here are from you it is impossible for that not to be the case. Some will argue with you but others just get fed up with the relentless nonsense and react accordingly. They are not obsessed with you, they are simply reacting in exasperation.
This is another example of you mis-analysing stuff.
I did not listen to, or have any interest, in the Carlson - Putin debate which seems to have taken over PB
Maybe having health issues, a pacemaker operation, and on going investigations I just canot be bothered over this event which, apart from a few political obsessives, is unlikely to have registered with the public at large
On domestic politics, I note Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate and the haranguing of Angela Rayner, while canvassing, must have been very unpleasant and surely this Middle East conflict is interrupting UK politics and Labour in particular
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
As I pointed out the other day, making them illegal means that, under the sentencing guidelines you are in the High Culpability column.
Which means if your dog kills someone you can get 14 years - the sentencing *starts* at 8 years.
This will end with a number of people get the maximum.
It's not an effective solution to the problem at all, is it? Owners will still want to keep their dogs for whatever irrational reason (love of the animal, for protection/intimidation, for status, or simply because they don't like being told what to do by the state), people will still be attacked, maimed, and killed, and our prisons will continue to overflow with former dog owners at the tax payers expense.
I had a look to see if any state has compulsory euthanasia done byu the government but got sidetracked by this rather bizarre sidelight on the matter - the advice to vets says to watch out for people bringing in XL Bullies that aren't even their own for terminal injection so they can collect the £200 compo off the Government. Rather like stealing lemonade bottles in the old days to get the 6d return.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
Yes, of course, that's why no one is talking about it. It's basically just me. And every single news outlet on the planet. And Boris Johnson. And Justin Trudeau. And the white House Press Secretary. And Zelensky. And and and
As a matter of interest, did you learn anything from the interview? If so, what?
Yes, lots of stuff
But, if I talk about it, I'll be accused of talking about it, to prove that people are talking about it, by the PB geniuses, so what can I do?
After the story of the six year old girl in the taxi that led the BBC news and the brilliant report 'from our own cotrrespondent' you'd have to be pretty sick to continue supporting Netanyahu or Israel in any shape or form. Yesterday's pictures of the blown out ambulence with it's two paramedics dead inside just made it even more unbearable.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
Support for Israel on this is down to those who don't view Palestinians as proper 3d human beings.
That seems to be a UK thing. Perhaps it's the same thing as Brexit. This idea of British exceptionalism. The 'Zulu' mentality. Some of the posts on here are just alarming. Some of the brightest as wisest and most interesting people I've met are Arabs. They have a wisdom that goes back centuries. So many here just see them as the Indians in the cowboys and Indians that they grew up with
I’m surprised Carlson didn’t get down and blow Putin .
And that’s the same for much of the GOP who are treasonous scum .
It's worth reminding ourselves - and the Americans - that this arsehole sprayed Novichok around Salisbury. Still surprised at how restrained the UK Gov was at the time.
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
Fine by me, but you'll have to run it by Smithson Junior, as he was the one who kicked off this debate yesterday by saying I had been proven wrong and Tucker Putin was a flop, a disaster, no one watched it, which, as we now know, is shite
Otherwise, yes, let's move on
Tho there is that really weird moment at about 1 hour 32 in the interview.... but I want to turn that into a Gazette piece so mum's the word!
I'm looking forward to the major Hollywood movie 30 years later being nominated for 5 Oscars, like Frost/Nixon.
That interview. The relevant context is that the Trump neo-fascists are pro Russia and anti-NATO. 2 hours of fawning as a preface for Trump asking Putin to do what he likes to Europe.
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
Trump also suggested it would be a good thing if Putin attacked NATO countries which weren't spending enough on defence.
It's that 'art of the deal' schtick again. Donald Trump the big big man who intimidates and runs rings round everybody by being incredibly smart and tough. Manhattan real estate, big ticket geopolitics, it makes no difference. Always 'winning'. Always 'beating' people. It's infantile but one of his most effective lines of appeal. Most of his supporters are quite simple people and they buy it.
I don't want to be 'pro-Trump', but one way of looking at this is that it is selling NATO to his followers. It sets out a vision. Obviously though it is flawed, because some countries are more at risk of attack than others, in many cases however there is a strategic interest in having them in the alliance, despite the relatively low GDP contibution, but that line of thinking is a bit too complex in this type of debate. As a general principle the 'NATO as a protectorate' idea is pretty sound and better than it being a fading legacy of the cold war with people being uncertain about what it is.
You're being far too generous. He's selling his one and only product - himself. As for what he'd do on NATO if he gets back, I honestly don't know. He might trash it or then again he might not. It's a risk (along with many others) that he alone brings and like all the others it skews heavily to the downside. Trump Risk we can call it. It merits its own category. If people want to avoid it (which is the rational choice) they know what to do.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
As I pointed out the other day, making them illegal means that, under the sentencing guidelines you are in the High Culpability column.
Which means if your dog kills someone you can get 14 years - the sentencing *starts* at 8 years.
This will end with a number of people get the maximum.
It's not an effective solution to the problem at all, is it? Owners will still want to keep their dogs for whatever irrational reason (love of the animal, for protection/intimidation, for status, or simply because they don't like being told what to do by the state), people will still be attacked, maimed, and killed, and our prisons will continue to overflow with former dog owners at the tax payers expense.
I had a look to see if any state has compulsory euthanasia done byu the government but got sidetracked by this rather bizarre sidelight on the matter - the advice to vets says to watch out for people bringing in XL Bullies that aren't even their own for terminal injection so they can collect the £200 compo off the Government. Rather like stealing lemonade bottles in the old days to get the 6d return.
There's always unintended consequences and people exploiting compensation schemes is nothing new.
The problems is governments, egged on by the media and public opinion, often make knee jerk decisions to solve a problem without properly thinking it through and considering potential unintended consequences, and how to counter them.
On the potential euthanasia scam you describe, I would suggest that the pragmatic thing to do would be for the vet to euthanase the animal and get it out of circulation - after all, you'd be paying the real owner the £200.
There really has been a move in Rochdale by election betting now - Labour 2/5 from 1/4 whilst GG has shortened likewise, 4/1 into 5/2
I suppose Labour will be saying how they disagree with their candidate, whilst a lot of Muslim voters actually agree. So the only one saying it loud & proud is Georgie
After the story of the six year old girl in the taxi that led the BBC news and the brilliant report 'from our own cotrrespondent' you'd have to be pretty sick to continue supporting Netanyahu or Israel in any shape or form. Yesterday's pictures of the blown out ambulence with it's two paramedics dead inside just made it even more unbearable.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
Support for Israel on this is down to those who don't view Palestinians as proper 3d human beings.
That seems to be a UK thing. Perhaps it's the same thing as Brexit. This idea of British exceptionalism. The 'Zulu' mentality. Some of the posts on here are just alarming. Some of the brightest as wisest and most interesting people I've met are Arabs. They have a wisdom that goes back centuries. So many here just see them as the Indians in the cowboys and Indians that they grew up with
You do have a nice line in self-hating faux orientalism.
XL Bully owners in open rebellion on my local Facebook page. People posting photos of puppies, arranging meet-ups in parks, taking off muzzles, "our babies". There also seems to be a trend of people owning four or five.
I don't think this is over.
It will end with the government forcibly euthanising them
As I pointed out the other day, making them illegal means that, under the sentencing guidelines you are in the High Culpability column.
Which means if your dog kills someone you can get 14 years - the sentencing *starts* at 8 years.
This will end with a number of people get the maximum.
It's not an effective solution to the problem at all, is it? Owners will still want to keep their dogs for whatever irrational reason (love of the animal, for protection/intimidation, for status, or simply because they don't like being told what to do by the state), people will still be attacked, maimed, and killed, and our prisons will continue to overflow with former dog owners at the tax payers expense.
I had a look to see if any state has compulsory euthanasia done byu the government but got sidetracked by this rather bizarre sidelight on the matter - the advice to vets says to watch out for people bringing in XL Bullies that aren't even their own for terminal injection so they can collect the £200 compo off the Government. Rather like stealing lemonade bottles in the old days to get the 6d return.
There's always unintended consequences and people exploiting compensation schemes is nothing new.
The problems is governments, egged on by the media and public opinion, often make knee jerk decisions to solve a problem without properly thinking it through and considering potential unintended consequences, and how to counter them.
On the potential euthanasia scam you describe, I would suggest that the pragmatic thing to do would be for the vet to euthanase the animal and get it out of circulation - after all, you'd be paying the real owner the £200.
Also, demands for government to do the euthanising forcibly - yes, but who? The police? Vets who will be threatened? Some new service that will make itself out of a job unless it moves on to Staffies, etc. etc. ...
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
Yes, of course, that's why no one is talking about it. It's basically just me. And every single news outlet on the planet. And Boris Johnson. And Justin Trudeau. And the white House Press Secretary. And Zelensky. And and and
As a matter of interest, did you learn anything from the interview? If so, what?
Yes, lots of stuff
But, if I talk about it, I'll be accused of talking about it, to prove that people are talking about it, by the PB geniuses, so what can I do?
In other words, nothing.
OK, it seems you really want to know, so here is what I took away
1. Putin is properly smart
2. He is highly informed: he knows America's GDP growth, he knows the GDP by PPP of the top seven countries, he knows trade patterns
3. HE is not dying, he doesn't even look ill
4. He is an autodidact, and particularly obsessed with Russian history, and he has a vast but very boring knowledge of it, which he is unable to express excitingly
4. He GENUINELY believes Ukraine does not have a right to exist, and he's thought about it a lot - eg I didn;t know the etymology of Ukraine comes from "borderland" - but he's right, it does, and it's part of his argument
5. He does his research: he knew Carlson had applied for the CIA - a moment which threw Carlson
6. I get the sense his territorial ambitions do not extend beyond Ukraine, but, he is a lying tyrant, so don't hold me to that
7. He fears and loathes America, fears its strength, loathes its hypocrisy - as he sees it
8. He is coldly irreligious
9. He seems to be a personal friend of Elon Musk - calls him "Elon" - but I could be wrong
10. He is quite up to speed on AI, and a bit scared of it
11. He is an absolute old fashioned Russian nationalist, in the Solzhenitsyn sense, he genuinely believes the stuff about the Russian soul, deep and Dostoevskyan (he actually cites Dostoevsky at one point)
12. He doesn't want an all out war, but mainly cause he would lose, or we'd all be dead, he's probably go for it if he could win
13. He is SCARED of China, they are not friends or allies, he pretends they are, but the body language says Fear, to me
There is more, lots more, but that's what I saw, for starters
One of the reasons Horner is paid a reported £8 million a year is because he is brilliant at marketing — both himself and Red Bull. His marriage to Geri Halliwell, the former Spice Girl, has added to his fame and combined the pair are thought to be worth £80 million.
The pair have three children between them and a wi-fi password of “Wonderful Husband”.
After the story of the six year old girl in the taxi that led the BBC news and the brilliant report 'from our own cotrrespondent' you'd have to be pretty sick to continue supporting Netanyahu or Israel in any shape or form. Yesterday's pictures of the blown out ambulence with it's two paramedics dead inside just made it even more unbearable.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
Support for Israel on this is down to those who don't view Palestinians as proper 3d human beings.
That seems to be a UK thing. Perhaps it's the same thing as Brexit. This idea of British exceptionalism. The 'Zulu' mentality. Some of the posts on here are just alarming. Some of the brightest as wisest and most interesting people I've met are Arabs. They have a wisdom that goes back centuries. So many here just see them as the Indians in the cowboys and Indians that they grew up with
I can't claim similar exposure but yes I do detect a "them arabs are inferior to them Israelis" mindset underlying some of the commentary.
Labour 'set to suspend' Rochdale candidate despite grovelling apology to Israel supporters. Labour in chaos, accused of 'throwing' campaign to avoid fallout if they lose to Galloway...
Yes I know its Skwawkbox but can't see how SKS can do anything else as the BOD demand his head on a plate.
I placed a bet on GG at 4/1 as the news broke yesterday
How dare Labour suspend antisemitic conspiracy theorists as party members? Don’t they know the party’s meant to be a haven for racists and weirdos?
(A more pertinent question would be, why did they pick the silly sod in the first place?)
Ali is a former council leader and head of the Labour group on Lancashire County Council. The original allegation, which I described yesterday as tenuous, was that Ali had been on the committee of a mosque that had recently hosted radical speakers. The Jewish Chronicle reported this but did not splash it. It also mentioned that a Muslim site complained that Ali had been a government anti-terrorism adviser and therefore not Islamist. https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/why-has-labours-rochdale-candidate-fundraised-for-a-mosque-that-hosted-extremists-ln6owl6f
Since then, the Mail reports a recording of Ali, well:-
So it seems the panel made a logical decision at the time and Ali said something stupid since.
In which case, fair enough to Labour. They were unlucky.
But I can't see how he survives saying it. Even our own resident antisemites don't suggest Israel deliberately allowed 7th October, although the more we know the more spectacular the failure of the Israeli government under Netanyahu looks.
No again you are wrong the remarks were made soon after the October 7th attacks the shortlisting was well after that.
Bad due diligence not unlucky
0/10 try harder
Tony Lloyd died on 17th January 2024 so Labour shortlisting was clearly after that.
Ali made his remarks in October or November.
Sowhat you’re saying is my first question was right after all?
If you add together all the other tens of millions of snippets that are being shared, around the world, it will surely be the most watched - and probably most-discussed - political interview of all time
Lol.
Nobody has watched more than 15 minutes of it.
It was a disaster. Even you didn't sit through it.
I absolutely did. It’s fascinating - after the first hour of tedium. But very very few will do that. It’s more than 2 hours long
The stats are in, however, for those seeing SOME of it. Even on YouTube it’s in the top 5 political interviews ever, cumulatively, indeed arguably its number 2 after Narendra Modi talking to some actor
If you can find another POLITICAL interview that has that virality, knock yourself out and (seriously) well done, I can’t. And I’ve searched
And this is just YouTube: the main platform is X
I mean. You could argue that ‘well they have to watch all 2 hours 14 minutes of it before it has any impact’ but then that would be silly. And you’re not a silly man
But what is a 'view'?
Is it an individual watching the whole interview from start to finish? Or is it a Russian bot adding a value onto the counter to claim a view?
Or is it both?
There are probably only ten people in the whole world who have seen that interview from start to finish. Two of those are Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin. The other seven is the camera crew forced to film that pile of shite, and the final person is the CIA operative who drew short straw and had to write a report on the whole thing.
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, a "view" simply means it has appeared on a user's timeline or in search results or other places. It does not mean that the user has watched a single second of it. Also, it counts each time a tweet is shown to a user, so if a user sees the tweet five times without watching any of it, that is five views. There is no way of knowing how many people have actually watched any of the interview on Twitter.
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
However we do know what equals a view on Youtube - it is at least 30 seconds of engagement with the actual video
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
Tell you what, why don't we cut a deal?
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
It is the most boring topic since @Leons last monomania.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
Yes, of course, that's why no one is talking about it. It's basically just me. And every single news outlet on the planet. And Boris Johnson. And Justin Trudeau. And the white House Press Secretary. And Zelensky. And and and
As a matter of interest, did you learn anything from the interview? If so, what?
Yes, lots of stuff
But, if I talk about it, I'll be accused of talking about it, to prove that people are talking about it, by the PB geniuses, so what can I do?
In other words, nothing.
OK, it seems you really want to know, so here is what I took away
1. Putin is properly smart
2. He is highly informed: he knows America's GDP growth, he knows the GDP by PPP of the top seven countries, he knows trade patterns
3. HE is not dying, he doesn't even look ill
4. He is an autodidact, and particularly obsessed with Russian history, and he has a vast but very boring knowledge of it, which he is unable to express excitingly
4. He GENUINELY believes Ukraine does not have a right to exist, and he's thought about it a lot - eg I didn;t know the etymology of Ukraine comes from "borderland" - but he's right, it does, and it's part of his argument
5. He does his research: he knew Carlson had applied for the CIA - a moment which threw Carlson
6. I get the sense his territorial ambitions do not extend beyond Ukraine, but, he is a lying tyrant, so don't hold me to that
7. He fears and loathes America, fears its strength, loathes its hypocrisy - as he sees it
8. He is coldly irreligious
9. He seems to be a personal friend of Elon Musk - calls him "Elon" - but I could be wrong
10. He is quite up to speed on AI, and a bit scared of it
11. He is an absolute old fashioned Russian nationalist, in the Solzhenitsyn sense, he genuinely believes the stuff about the Russian soul, deep and Dostoevskyan (he actually cites Dostoevsky at one point)
12. He doesn't want an all out war, but mainly cause he would lose, or we'd all be dead, he's probably go for it if he could win
13. He is SCARED of China, they are not friends or allies, he pretends they are, but the body language says Fear, to me
There is more, lots more, but that's what I saw, for starters
Gosh. You're like George Bush. You saw into his soul.
Rebecca Clancy, who has been F1 correspondent of The Times for the last seven years is standing down and has written a valedictory article, and well Sir Lewis Hamilton confirms his awesomeness.
There is no doubt that this is a world dominated by men. In 2021, just before the penultimate race in Saudi Arabia, I had brunch with Sir Lewis Hamilton and a few other Fleet Street colleagues in London. I’ve always had a good relationship with Hamilton. I find him polite and engaging and he always looks you in the eye when he answers your questions.
At this brunch, we were chatting about F1, and Hamilton, who has regularly spoken about the lack of diversity in the sport, turned to me and said: “Rebecca, there’s something I wanted to ask you. What’s it like being a woman in F1?” I told him I never felt I was treated any differently, which I didn’t.
However, I did mention that I was heading to Saudi Arabia the next day and was slightly hesitant about it because at the media hotel women weren’t allowed to use the pool or the gym. The next day, an email was sent to all media which said women would have the same access to the hotel facilities as the men. Hamilton had had a word.
Labour 'set to suspend' Rochdale candidate despite grovelling apology to Israel supporters. Labour in chaos, accused of 'throwing' campaign to avoid fallout if they lose to Galloway...
Yes I know its Skwawkbox but can't see how SKS can do anything else as the BOD demand his head on a plate.
I placed a bet on GG at 4/1 as the news broke yesterday
How dare Labour suspend antisemitic conspiracy theorists as party members? Don’t they know the party’s meant to be a haven for racists and weirdos?
(A more pertinent question would be, why did they pick the silly sod in the first place?)
Ali is a former council leader and head of the Labour group on Lancashire County Council. The original allegation, which I described yesterday as tenuous, was that Ali had been on the committee of a mosque that had recently hosted radical speakers. The Jewish Chronicle reported this but did not splash it. It also mentioned that a Muslim site complained that Ali had been a government anti-terrorism adviser and therefore not Islamist. https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/why-has-labours-rochdale-candidate-fundraised-for-a-mosque-that-hosted-extremists-ln6owl6f
Since then, the Mail reports a recording of Ali, well:-
So it seems the panel made a logical decision at the time and Ali said something stupid since.
In which case, fair enough to Labour. They were unlucky.
But I can't see how he survives saying it. Even our own resident antisemites don't suggest Israel deliberately allowed 7th October, although the more we know the more spectacular the failure of the Israeli government under Netanyahu looks.
No again you are wrong the remarks were made soon after the October 7th attacks the shortlisting was well after that.
Bad due diligence not unlucky
0/10 try harder
Tony Lloyd died on 17th January 2024 so Labour shortlisting was clearly after that.
Ali made his remarks in October or November.
Sowhat you’re saying is my first question was right after all?
“Why did they pick the silly sod in the first place?”
Sir Keir apparently wanted the i’s Paul Waugh, but the local candidate beat him
Labour 'set to suspend' Rochdale candidate despite grovelling apology to Israel supporters. Labour in chaos, accused of 'throwing' campaign to avoid fallout if they lose to Galloway...
Yes I know its Skwawkbox but can't see how SKS can do anything else as the BOD demand his head on a plate.
I placed a bet on GG at 4/1 as the news broke yesterday
How dare Labour suspend antisemitic conspiracy theorists as party members? Don’t they know the party’s meant to be a haven for racists and weirdos?
(A more pertinent question would be, why did they pick the silly sod in the first place?)
Ali is a former council leader and head of the Labour group on Lancashire County Council. The original allegation, which I described yesterday as tenuous, was that Ali had been on the committee of a mosque that had recently hosted radical speakers. The Jewish Chronicle reported this but did not splash it. It also mentioned that a Muslim site complained that Ali had been a government anti-terrorism adviser and therefore not Islamist. https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/why-has-labours-rochdale-candidate-fundraised-for-a-mosque-that-hosted-extremists-ln6owl6f
Since then, the Mail reports a recording of Ali, well:-
So it seems the panel made a logical decision at the time and Ali said something stupid since.
In which case, fair enough to Labour. They were unlucky.
But I can't see how he survives saying it. Even our own resident antisemites don't suggest Israel deliberately allowed 7th October, although the more we know the more spectacular the failure of the Israeli government under Netanyahu looks.
Tony Lloyd wasn’t even dead when he made these statements.
Labour have screwed up with the selection.
BJO’s statement on Luke Akehurst is a fact, it is hardly anti semitic.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that he got the organisations Akehurst is associated with wrong, the statement said that he was paid lobbyist of the Israelis by firm implication, The Israeli government.
Is this a fact? It doesn’t look like it from what I can see.
After the story of the six year old girl in the taxi that led the BBC news and the brilliant report 'from our own cotrrespondent' you'd have to be pretty sick to continue supporting Netanyahu or Israel in any shape or form. Yesterday's pictures of the blown out ambulence with it's two paramedics dead inside just made it even more unbearable.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
Support for Israel on this is down to those who don't view Palestinians as proper 3d human beings.
That seems to be a UK thing. Perhaps it's the same thing as Brexit. This idea of British exceptionalism. The 'Zulu' mentality. Some of the posts on here are just alarming. Some of the brightest as wisest and most interesting people I've met are Arabs. They have a wisdom that goes back centuries. So many here just see them as the Indians in the cowboys and Indians that they grew up with
I can't claim similar exposure but yes I do detect a "them arabs are inferior to them Israelis" mindset underlying some of the commentary.
I think there is a racism of low expectations towards Arabs by many in the Western media. They are not expected to exhibit civilised behaviour, while it is expected from Israel, hence the asymmetry of outrage at Hamas atrocities and the IDF ones.
Comments
There is a flat earther [1] called Nathan Oakley (shouldn't give him publicity really even mentioning him), who posts a daily video on YouTube. It gets less than 1,000 'views'.
Most of those views are bots, and the genuine ones, at least half of them are from scientists who then take pieces from his video to debunk them.
A YouTube view is meaningless. It tells you nothing about whether there is a person watching the video or not, and it tells you nothing about whether the person (if there are any) watching is for or against the video.
I'm talking about what they publish.
A view means someone has 1. absorbed some of Putin's take on history and politics, and 2. added to Carlson's self-curated persona as maybe the most watched TV interviewer on the planet
All that is true even if you come way from the video thinking Putin is a nasty criminal and Carlson a narcissistic nincompoop (both arguable positions)
Are you and @edmundintokyo honestly arguing that the NYT doesn't give a fuck if Trump is elected, that they are kinda neutral on that, as he has his downsides but he's good for business?
That is your position?
MAGA isn't going to do anything other than continue to think Trump-Putin are the best thing since sliced bread.
Democrats will continue to oppose Trump-Putin.
Maybe, just maybe, a few non-MAGA Republicans will think, "That Putin fellow is a bit unhinged. He spent thirty minutes talking about something called the Kievan Rus and Novgorod." It might sway them a little against.
I mean, excepting Europa Universalis fanatics, who here has heard of Kievan Rus and Novgorod?
But obviously, they have to vote for the guy with dementia because the other guy has dementia.
I don't think this is over.
Israel is largely engaged in mass murder now.......
Why do you think the Twitter parody NYTpitchbot exists ?
Hard to speculate on their motivation, but if I had to, I'd say it's a warped sense of 'balance'.
The NYT article suggests Biden should step aside at the DNC convention and not endorse any particular individual to replace him. The betting suggests Newsom is best placed if that happens. There is no evidence Michelle Obama wants the gig and she doesn't hold any political office. Harris appears to be not popular enough. I like Whitmer but I don't think she is popular enough either?
So why not Newsom? Anyone know how he matches up against Trump in the polls?
Good to know
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
(Or both?)
A good piece by Dom Cummings' wife about how she changed her mind about XL Bullies. She was pro Bully and anti-ban, until her young and only child met one on the Tube. Unmuzzled
You really do have to see these monsters in the flesh to see how dangerous they are
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/xl-bullies-deserve-to-be-banned/
I also didn't realise the stupid owner of those dogs in Jaywick has now said THIS:
"Oddly, in all the arguments for and against XL Bullys over the past week, the person I’ve found most sensible is Ashley Warren, owner of the killer dogs. ‘I did not know Bullys were aggressive, I didn’t believe all this stuff,’ he said. ‘But now I’ve learned the hard way. I honestly thought the ban was a stupid government plan to wipe out a breed which I had never seen anything but softness and love from. Now I think they need to be wiped out.’"
Get on with it
Vaguely on topic, Khan is of course taking nothing for granted and will campaign hard. Hall will rely on traditional Conservative strength in the Outer Boroughs and possibilities of abstentions and Labour splits over Gaza in Inner London to get her over the line.
This isn't 2021 but Uxbridge showed there's life in the Conservatives in the Outer Suburbs even if the locals in 2022 had been a distinctly mixed bag for the Party. Whether, if we are to believe @MoonRabbit and the London Mayoral Election will, for the first time, be on the same day as a GE, I'm not sure but that's more likely to drive higher turnout which will hurt Hall.
In Newham, Labour have lost two by-elections in recent times and the strength of pro-Palestinian feeling in some parts of the Borough is unmistakeable with Palestine flags on lamp posts. Whether the self styled Newham Independents will run a GE candidate in East Ham I don't know but a London Mayoral candidate advocating a similar line could draw significant support from Khan.
Taking November 2023 polls as gospel is ridiculous and back in 2021 the polls were very poor. Both YouGov and Savanta, who did fieldwork on the three days before polling, reported 12-point leads for Khan and in the end Khan won the first round by less than five. I'm not certain what happened - the Conservatives actually won one Ward in Newham in the Mayoral race and in the East Ham Central by election, the Conservative candidate polled 30% which was remarkable. Did Labour voters just abstain or did the pollsters just not see a groundswell of Conservative support in the last days of the contest?
That was then and this is now, as a wise man once opined. London Labour has a lot of problems but London Conservatives are also in a bad place compared to 2021. The race remains Khan's to lose.
It's just that they are not very good at journalism.
That would resolve the issue of " is it really an XL Bully?"
Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says
‘By the way NATO is dead,’ the former (and potential future) US president added in private meeting.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/
.."You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
"By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO," Trump also said, according to Breton. "And he added, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense,'" Breton said about the tense meeting, where the EU's then-trade chief Phil Hogan was also present...
"You owe me."
I count as at least one "view" of this interview on Twitter. It could be said that I've watched the first 10 seconds of it since Twitter starts playing videos automatically, but I didn't turn the sound on so I have no idea what Carlson was saying.
And, despite the opinions of @Nigelb and @edmundintokyo I believe the NYT is absolutely sincere in its dread and hatred of Trump, and want him defeated more than anything
I make the same level of amateurish contribution there I do here - I was musing on the absence of fog this winter while most were annoyed at the lack of snow. There's plenty of evidence a warmer atmosphere generates more energy, more movement and greater instability.
Some have discussed the expansion of the Hadley Cell and others the rising Sea Surface Temperatures and what impact these might have.
My personal view is the European climate will move toward something more akin to the Indian Sub-Continent today with significant monsoon type rainfgall episodes offset by stronger heatwaves and drought conditions. Those seeking solace from the heat of the cities will head to places like the Swedish and Finnish Lakes, our Lake District and northern Scotland. In 100 years, the Northern Scottish coast will be the place to go on holiday - if anyone had any sense they'd be developing transport links to the far north and the northern and western isles. There are beaches on Harris and Lewis which are spectacular now but currently hardly visited.
For now.
https://x.com/bethrigby/status/1756608979654811854?s=61
Their beliefs are irrelevant. The headlines they publish are what matters.
Tucker Putin has racked up at least thirty million views on YouTube, cumulatively
There may well be a reason why the engagement would be a lot less than that on TwiX but it seems clear Carlson has got many tens of million of people (possibly over a hundred millon) to see at least SOME of his interview with Putler
(Possibly not that odd- the Standard is rapidly dying as an actual newspaper and why waste money on polling when the headline is so obvious?)
The last London election was peak Vaccine Bounce, which is a long time ago now.
Hall would have needed a lot of things to fall her way; a better national picture, someone like Jez standing as a spoiler on the left, ULEZ still being a live issue. On those counts, she's 3-0 down.
Plus, she is a bit of a nitwit.
It's not because, as your comrade @edmundintokyo put it: "they [the NYT] don't particularly mind if Trump wins because he's great for their business"
But that doesn’t detract from this being a milestone moment in media history, nor is it an irrelevance for the congressional passage of the military aid bill and November elections.
It was a major topic of conversation at an event I went to yesterday in Nice. It could turn into as iconic an image as the burning Vietnamese girl. It's difficult to knows how it's running across the rest of Europe.
Interesting test of whether proper heartfelt (or at least superficially heartfelt) apologies have a better impact than halfhearted ones.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
But I have moaned about this enough
I am determined to play nicely, seeing as I am totally reliant on PB for social intercourse until I can get the fuck out of dodge. I love you all!
Interesting piece - and rather more nuanced than Ms Braverman's and Mr 30p Anderson's assertions, which were based on some curious anecdata:
'On Thursday, a former C of E priest claimed the church was complicit in a “conveyor belt and veritable industry of asylum baptisms”. Matthew Firth, who was a priest in the north of England, told the Telegraph that about 20 asylum seekers had sought baptisms at his church to support their applications, and he believed there were “probably” thousands of asylum baptisms in the C of E.
Paul Butler, the bishop of Durham, has said Firth’s claims were “imaginative” and “some distance from reality”.
In a statement, Butler said: “Mr Firth does not offer any evidence to support these claims, however a check of the parish records quickly reveals … a total of 15 people (13 adults, 2 infants) who may have been asylum seekers have been baptised over the past 10 years. Of these, seven were baptised by Mr Firth himself.
“As priest in charge, he will have been aware of his responsibility to check the authenticity of candidates. If there was any sign of anything amiss, Mr Firth should have reported this. Had he raised any concerns at any point with senior staff … they would of course have been taken seriously and investigated. He did not do so.”'
Though, of course, 'seek' is not the same as 'actually be baptised'.
So I think it's best if 1. we ignore you on this point and/or 2. perhaps you should talk about something else?
Did we, for example, ever ask how our defences got into such a condition in the late 1930s the German Army was able to end up conquering western Europe in a few weeks and German aircraft were able to punitively attack British towns and cities? I suspect not.
In the relief of things turning out right we rarely ask how they went wrong in the first place - the four questions which should always be asked are what happened and why did it happen followed by what might have happened and why did it not? The last two take a lot longer than the first two.
We all agree that Carlson-Putin was the most important political interview in the universe ever and had more views than the number of people on the planet.
In return, you agree never to mention it again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68266335
The current BBC lead story records objections from Britain, Europe and America. Surely that provides enough political cover for Starmer to say something, anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/11/england-cricket-jack-leach-ruled-out-of-rest-of-india-test-tour-with-knee-injury
Otherwise, yes, let's move on
Tho there is that really weird moment at about 1 hour 32 in the interview.... but I want to turn that into a Gazette piece so mum's the word!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/11/dentists-barred-english-nhs-patients-over-skipped-checkups-in-pandemic
Intderestingly, three months notice is required in Scotland, but south of the border
you can be cancelled dentally just like that *snaps fingers*.
A curious comment: 'A Commons’ health select committee report published in July recommended the government require patients to be registered with an NHS dentist. The government has said it has no plans to introduce official patient registration for dental services, because the current model allows “greater choice and flexibility for patients”.'
Which means if your dog kills someone you can get 14 years - the sentencing *starts* at 8 years.
This will end with a number of people get the maximum.
You can argue with edmundintokyo about what the NYT 'believes' as much as you like, but it's irrelevant.
What matters is what they publish, and your assertion that it's comparable to the way in which the Telegraph operates is simply risible.
A bloodthirsty lying dictator being interviewed by a far right conspiracy theorist does not an interesting interview make. It's just clickbait for the gullible. No wonder he is so obsessed.
The Guardian = The Express. CH4 = GBNews. Insurrection and Election Denial 2020 = Talking about Russian interference 2016. Etc etc.
It's not exclusive to the Right but they are the specialists in the area.
https://themuslimvote.co.uk/who-should-i-vote-for
Looks a bit like the Open Newham website in style and content.
East Ham has 43% of the electorate identifiying as Muslim which puts it third in the country but Stephen Timms voted for a ceasefire in Gaza which will help him a little.
Just to note it's not all Labour constituencies - there are at least seven Conservative MPs who voted against a Gaza ceasefire on the list.
Also an issue in Scotland so you can bash both opponents with it without it being a left-right issue.
It's like if I started blatting on about rugby. and claimed the All Blacks generally try to lose; you'd stop listening to me about rugby, and rightly so
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
Starting Jan. 1, all undocumented immigrants, regardless of age, will qualify for Medi-Cal, California's version of the federal Medicaid program for people with low incomes.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-1st-state-offer-health-insurance-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=105986377
But, if I talk about it, I'll be accused of talking about it, to prove that people are talking about it, by the PB geniuses, so what can I do?
You also relentlessly complain about people being obsessed with you when they react to your posts in frustration even if only very occasionally eg @malcolmg today, yet when something like 50% of the post here are from you it is impossible for that not to be the case. Some will argue with you but others just get fed up with the relentless nonsense and react accordingly. They are not obsessed with you, they are simply reacting in exasperation.
This is another example of you mis-analysing stuff.
I did not listen to, or have any interest, in the Carlson - Putin debate which seems to have taken over PB
Maybe having health issues, a pacemaker operation, and on going investigations I just canot be bothered over this event which, apart from a few political obsessives, is unlikely to have registered with the public at large
On domestic politics, I note Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate and the haranguing of Angela Rayner, while canvassing, must have been very unpleasant and surely this Middle East conflict is interrupting UK politics and Labour in particular
And that’s the same for much of the GOP who are treasonous scum .
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/xl-bully-dog-ban/#euthanasia
Carlson/Putin. Should be riveting.
The problems is governments, egged on by the media and public opinion, often make knee jerk decisions to solve a problem without properly thinking it through and considering potential unintended consequences, and how to counter them.
On the potential euthanasia scam you describe, I would suggest that the pragmatic thing to do would be for the vet to euthanase the animal and get it out of circulation - after all, you'd be paying the real owner the £200.
I suppose Labour will be saying how they disagree with their candidate, whilst a lot of Muslim voters actually agree. So the only one saying it loud & proud is Georgie
Michelin-star chef prefers to serve British cheese instead of French
French chef Claude Bosi says 'evolution' of British cheese has been 'amazing' compared to 25 years ago when there was 'hardly any choice'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/michelin-star-chef-british-cheese-french-claude-bosi/
1. Putin is properly smart
2. He is highly informed: he knows America's GDP growth, he knows the GDP by PPP of the top seven countries, he knows trade patterns
3. HE is not dying, he doesn't even look ill
4. He is an autodidact, and particularly obsessed with Russian history, and he has a vast but very boring knowledge of it, which he is unable to express excitingly
4. He GENUINELY believes Ukraine does not have a right to exist, and he's thought about it a lot - eg I didn;t know the etymology of Ukraine comes from "borderland" - but he's right, it does, and it's part of his argument
5. He does his research: he knew Carlson had applied for the CIA - a moment which threw Carlson
6. I get the sense his territorial ambitions do not extend beyond Ukraine, but, he is a lying tyrant, so don't hold me to that
7. He fears and loathes America, fears its strength, loathes its hypocrisy - as he sees it
8. He is coldly irreligious
9. He seems to be a personal friend of Elon Musk - calls him "Elon" - but I could be wrong
10. He is quite up to speed on AI, and a bit scared of it
11. He is an absolute old fashioned Russian nationalist, in the Solzhenitsyn sense, he genuinely believes the stuff about the Russian soul, deep and Dostoevskyan (he actually cites Dostoevsky at one point)
12. He doesn't want an all out war, but mainly cause he would lose, or we'd all be dead, he's probably go for it if he could win
13. He is SCARED of China, they are not friends or allies, he pretends they are, but the body language says Fear, to me
There is more, lots more, but that's what I saw, for starters
One of the reasons Horner is paid a reported £8 million a year is because he is brilliant at marketing — both himself and Red Bull. His marriage to Geri Halliwell, the former Spice Girl, has added to his fame and combined the pair are thought to be worth £80 million.
The pair have three children between them and a wi-fi password of “Wonderful Husband”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roaring-egos-and-track-titans-my-life-in-the-formula-one-fast-lane-pckhf8xrj
Maybe we could club together and get James O’Brien an interview at the Kremlin, on the condition he really goes for Vlad’s jugular
There is no doubt that this is a world dominated by men. In 2021, just before the penultimate race in Saudi Arabia, I had brunch with Sir Lewis Hamilton and a few other Fleet Street colleagues in London. I’ve always had a good relationship with Hamilton. I find him polite and engaging and he always looks you in the eye when he answers your questions.
At this brunch, we were chatting about F1, and Hamilton, who has regularly spoken about the lack of diversity in the sport, turned to me and said: “Rebecca, there’s something I wanted to ask you. What’s it like being a woman in F1?” I told him I never felt I was treated any differently, which I didn’t.
However, I did mention that I was heading to Saudi Arabia the next day and was slightly hesitant about it because at the media hotel women weren’t allowed to use the pool or the gym. The next day, an email was sent to all media which said women would have the same access to the hotel facilities as the men. Hamilton had had a word.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roaring-egos-and-track-titans-my-life-in-the-formula-one-fast-lane-pckhf8xrj
Sir Keir apparently wanted the i’s Paul Waugh, but the local candidate beat him
Is this a fact? It doesn’t look like it from what I can see. Well, if really believe that you’ve adopted such a position there seems barely more point in reasoning with you than there would be with Trump.