Howdy, Stranger!

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

Impeaching Joe Biden – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 15 in General
imageImpeaching Joe Biden – politicalbetting.com

Betfair have this market on whether the Joe Biden will be impeached before the election. What I like about this bet is that the terms are very clear

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • First like Trump
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    First like Trump

    Talking about being first, have you been to East Linton yet?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,311
    it is perfectly possible the Republican controlled House could try and impeach Biden, however given the Senate remains Democrat controlled it has no chance of leading to a conviction before the next presidential election
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    HYUFD said:

    it is perfectly possible the Republican controlled House could try and impeach Biden, however given the Senate remains Democrat controlled it has no chance of leading to a conviction before the next presidential election

    I think ‘control’ is a generous word for what Republicans have in the House…
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    Does this factor in the chances of him snuffing it? I don’t wish ill on the old geezer but he’s not looking great
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    edited February 11
    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    November - the date of the Presidential election.

    Edit: This is, of course, why all dates should be in ISO format. 2024-11-05. Easy-peasy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    Leon said:

    Does this factor in the chances of him snuffing it? I don’t wish ill on the old geezer but he’s not looking great

    RTFH.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    The election’s on the fifth November?

    Remember, Remember
    Gunpowder, treason and plot…

    Very apt unless Trump is jailed or tossed so isn’t running.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    I would guess "yes" on this given the terms of the deal. The attempt to "impeach" his son persists for no obvious reason, they attempted to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary for his failures at that Texas border (on pretty much the same day that they failed to pass their own bill which sought to address the problem), they resent the fact that their great leader was impeached twice and they are, quite simply, as mad as a box of frogs. Why on earth wouldn't they? Their track record indicates that they need no evidence, no logic, no reason. Its what they do.
  • Leon said:

    Does this factor in the chances of him snuffing it? I don’t wish ill on the old geezer but he’s not looking great

    From the header: If Joe Biden dies before impeachment is passed or the election day this market will be voided.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    edited February 11
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    it is perfectly possible the Republican controlled House could try and impeach Biden, however given the Senate remains Democrat controlled it has no chance of leading to a conviction before the next presidential election

    I think ‘control’ is a generous word for what Republicans have in the House…
    The US House at the moment, is somewhat reminiscent of the 2017 Parliament in the UK. Pretty much unable to agree on anything except postponing decisions, and in need of another election in short order.

    However, one thing on which all the various Republican factions should be able to agree, is an impeachment of the president, so long as someone can find the correct form of words. In which case, the 6 is value. (Assuming the UK date format in the rules).
  • This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,311
    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Does this factor in the chances of him snuffing it? I don’t wish ill on the old geezer but he’s not looking great

    RTFH.
    Ah. Indeed

    Can you get odds on that? Him keeling over? He looks so b ok ok I won’t go there
  • HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Your lot keep supporting the guy who wants to end NATO and invites Putin to invade EU countries.

    Why is that?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,835

    This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…

    It’s unfair because he is a member of The Legally Challenged Community.

    Sometime ago I met some “penal reformers” who wanted to replace “criminal” with LCC. Because criminal is pejorative, apparently.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    November - the date of the Presidential election.

    Edit: This is, of course, why all dates should be in ISO format. 2024-11-05. Easy-peasy.
    Yes, ISO format for dates and SI units for everything else. It’s mostly Americans who disagree with those.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Leon said:

    Does this factor in the chances of him snuffing it? I don’t wish ill on the old geezer but he’s not looking great

    From the header: If Joe Biden dies before impeachment is passed or the election day this market will be voided.
    Yes. @Nigelb has set me right. I was being lazy and skimming

    There must be more interesting bets tho, coz if you think about it, whatever happens in 2024 something mad is gonna happen

    1. The Americans reelect Biden, a man who is now clearly demented and can’t tell Egypt from Arkansas

    2. The Americans reelect Donald trump, ffs

    3. The Americans elect Kamala hahahaha no give over

    4. The Americans elect someone else? Who? How??

    Looking at it that way, which option is the LEAST ridiculous, I am drawn to the idea of Kamala Harris
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    it is perfectly possible the Republican controlled House could try and impeach Biden, however given the Senate remains Democrat controlled it has no chance of leading to a conviction before the next presidential election

    I think ‘control’ is a generous word for what Republicans have in the House…
    The US House at the moment, is somewhat reminiscent of the 2017 Parliament in the UK. Pretty much unable to agree on anything except postponing decisions, and in need of another election in short order.

    However, one thing on which all the various Republican factions should be able to agree, is an impeachment of the president, so long as someone can find the correct form of words. In which case, the 6 is value. (Assuming the UK date format in the rules).
    Why?

    To be impeached, you need to have committed a crime related to the office you hold.

    Biden hasn’t even been accused of one.

    They tried to impeach the Secretary of Homeland Security because reasons and several of their own reps rebelled on the grounds that actually, impeachment is a process not a political game.

    They may also have learned from the Dem mistake about impeaching Trump prematurely. If they hadn’t gone for the first they would have had a slam dunk case even that cowardly cretin McConnell couldn’t have ducked on the second.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    edited February 11

    This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…

    It’s unfair because he is a member of The Legally Challenged Community.

    Sometime ago I met some “penal reformers” who wanted to replace “criminal” with LCC. Because criminal is pejorative, apparently.
    Well, more that criminal identified then as having criminality as an inherent characteristic, perhaps.

    Maybe, "Person With Temporary Legal Difficulties" would be better?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    November - the date of the Presidential election.

    Edit: This is, of course, why all dates should be in ISO format. 2024-11-05. Easy-peasy.
    Yes, ISO format for dates and SI units for everything else. It’s mostly Americans who disagree with those.
    And Brexiters, let's be fair.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,180
    Andrew Rawnsley is not being very complimentary about Sir Keir.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/11/scuttling-his-flagship-green-policy-sir-keir-starmer-has-imperilled-his-credibility

    Is something afoot? I get the feeling there are elements within Labour that have decided the bland, cautious, managerial approach will get them chucked out of office after one term anyway. So therefore what's the point? Will Sir Keir be replaced with someone with vision and vim, with eye towards the future?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    edited February 11

    This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…

    It’s unfair because he is a member of The Legally Challenged Community.

    Sometime ago I met some “penal reformers” who wanted to replace “criminal” with LCC. Because criminal is pejorative, apparently.
    Well, more that criminal identified then as having criminality as an inherent characteristic, perhaps.

    Maybe, "Person With Temporary Legal Difficulties" would be better?
    What's wrong with convict? It's accurate, and it's not value loaded - leaves open the question of innocence/unfair trials. Seeing as a convict has been convicted to undergo penal sanctions in the first place.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,835

    This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…

    It’s unfair because he is a member of The Legally Challenged Community.

    Sometime ago I met some “penal reformers” who wanted to replace “criminal” with LCC. Because criminal is pejorative, apparently.
    Well, more that criminal identified then as having criminality as an inherent characteristic, perhaps.

    Maybe, "Person With Temporary Legal Difficulties" would be better?
    If I understood the cant correctly, an LCC is someone who is permanent disadvantaged by having a social/cultural issue with the law/society.

    Think Habitual Criminal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Does this factor in the chances of him snuffing it? I don’t wish ill on the old geezer but he’s not looking great

    RTFH.
    Ah. Indeed

    Can you get odds on that? Him keeling over? He looks so b ok ok I won’t go there
    Laying him for either the nomination (or the presidency, which gives you longer, but’s worse value) is the only way that’s unlikely to be voided.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Now hopefully your sympathetic reading of Trump has vanished. He is despicable and dangerous.

    He owes everything he has retained this millennium, either directly or indirectly (via Deutsche Bank and others) to the Russian state.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    Austria is quite extraordinarily parasitic. A very wealthy nation - borderline smug - I’d say. The average Austrian has a much nicer welfare coddled life than the average American

    Austria spends just 0.77% of GDP on defence, and its right in the firing line if Putin comes marching through Eastern Europe

    Ireland is an unspeakable leech, of course. 0.23% and relying on the Brits who they constantly abuse

    You can’t blame The Donald for being a bit irritable
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    it is perfectly possible the Republican controlled House could try and impeach Biden, however given the Senate remains Democrat controlled it has no chance of leading to a conviction before the next presidential election

    I think ‘control’ is a generous word for what Republicans have in the House…
    The US House at the moment, is somewhat reminiscent of the 2017 Parliament in the UK. Pretty much unable to agree on anything except postponing decisions, and in need of another election in short order.

    However, one thing on which all the various Republican factions should be able to agree, is an impeachment of the president, so long as someone can find the correct form of words. In which case, the 6 is value. (Assuming the UK date format in the rules).
    Why?

    To be impeached, you need to have committed a crime related to the office you hold.

    Biden hasn’t even been accused of one.

    They tried to impeach the Secretary of Homeland Security because reasons and several of their own reps rebelled on the grounds that actually, impeachment is a process not a political game.

    They may also have learned from the Dem mistake about impeaching Trump prematurely. If they hadn’t gone for the first they would have had a slam dunk case even that cowardly cretin McConnell couldn’t have ducked on the second.
    To be fair, the impeachment of HS Sec Mayorkas is coming back next week, and will probably pass. He’s the person responsible for the row in Texas over illegal immigration, with the Feds apparently in favour of letting people cross the border.

    Regarding Biden, I think that his own Cabinet need to have a good look at the 25th amendment. The report last week is really sad to read, he’s clearly not all there any more and needs to stand down. Many of us will have dealt with family members in similar situations.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,835
    Carnyx said:

    This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…

    It’s unfair because he is a member of The Legally Challenged Community.

    Sometime ago I met some “penal reformers” who wanted to replace “criminal” with LCC. Because criminal is pejorative, apparently.
    Well, more that criminal identified then as having criminality as an inherent characteristic, perhaps.

    Maybe, "Person With Temporary Legal Difficulties" would be better?
    What's wrong with convict? It's accurate, and it's not value loaded - leaves open the question of innocence/unfair trials. Seeing as a convict has been convicted to undergo penal sanctions in the first place.
    It’s much harder to to turn “convict”‘into a power point slide deck, a charitable cause and whole bunch of nonsense?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    Nice clear post with video illustrations attached below.

    Since the media refuses to report on it, let me share what happens at a typical Trump speech:

    1. He comes out to the playing of the “January 6 Anthem” song which he recorded with some of the most dangerous J6 rioters in jail.

    2. He brags how his song with the J6 rioters gets more downloads than Taylor Swift (it does not)

    3. He spends a few minutes talking about passing cognitive exams, and how the audience would not pass the exam, but because he is really smart (he is not) he is able to ace the exam.

    4. He praises Viktor Orban, the leader of Hungary, who Trump says is the most respected leader in Europe (he is not).

    5. He praises President Xi and says he is very strong and rules over 1 billion people with an iron fist and Hollywood couldn’t find an actor as tough as President Xi.

    6. He praises Putin and says people say it’s a bad thing he gets along with Putin but he thinks it’s a good thing.

    7. He makes weird noises reenacting lifting weights with a trans woman and he says “mommy I can’t do it. Mommy. Ughhh, uhh, mommy help me.”

    8. He says he doesn’t like seeing President Biden at the beach and says he has a better body than Biden (he does not)

    9. He talks about his hatred of windmills and his hatred of electric cars. He says he would rather be electrocuted than eaten by sharks however.

    10. He praises the J6 insurrectionists and calls them hostages.

    11. He whines about his court cases, attacks prosecutors, judges, and witnesses, and then praises “the great Alphonse Capone” and brags he was indicted more than Capone.

    12. He quotes Hitler and says immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.

    13. He says he wants to be a dictator on day 1.

    14. He plays QAnon music, audience members often make QAnon sign with their hands, and he talks about how America is a failing nation.

    15. He does a weird dance and leaves.

    https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1756162844431937593
  • eekeek Posts: 24,504

    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    November - the date of the Presidential election.

    Edit: This is, of course, why all dates should be in ISO format. 2024-11-05. Easy-peasy.
    But don't do what someone did on Friday and use yyyy-mm-dd and then wonder why the date parser failed 4 times out of 5.

    For date time parsing Lower case mm is minutes, upper case mm is months.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    Nigelb said:

    Nice clear post with video illustrations attached below.

    Since the media refuses to report on it, let me share what happens at a typical Trump speech:

    1. He comes out to the playing of the “January 6 Anthem” song which he recorded with some of the most dangerous J6 rioters in jail.

    2. He brags how his song with the J6 rioters gets more downloads than Taylor Swift (it does not)

    3. He spends a few minutes talking about passing cognitive exams, and how the audience would not pass the exam, but because he is really smart (he is not) he is able to ace the exam.

    4. He praises Viktor Orban, the leader of Hungary, who Trump says is the most respected leader in Europe (he is not).

    5. He praises President Xi and says he is very strong and rules over 1 billion people with an iron fist and Hollywood couldn’t find an actor as tough as President Xi.

    6. He praises Putin and says people say it’s a bad thing he gets along with Putin but he thinks it’s a good thing.

    7. He makes weird noises reenacting lifting weights with a trans woman and he says “mommy I can’t do it. Mommy. Ughhh, uhh, mommy help me.”

    8. He says he doesn’t like seeing President Biden at the beach and says he has a better body than Biden (he does not)

    9. He talks about his hatred of windmills and his hatred of electric cars. He says he would rather be electrocuted than eaten by sharks however.

    10. He praises the J6 insurrectionists and calls them hostages.

    11. He whines about his court cases, attacks prosecutors, judges, and witnesses, and then praises “the great Alphonse Capone” and brags he was indicted more than Capone.

    12. He quotes Hitler and says immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.

    13. He says he wants to be a dictator on day 1.

    14. He plays QAnon music, audience members often make QAnon sign with their hands, and he talks about how America is a failing nation.

    15. He does a weird dance and leaves.

    https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1756162844431937593

    And yet the Dems are struggling to beat him.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    The flip side is that America might not like a much more pugilistic and independent Europe, with a defence spending matching its economic heft, and thus more autonomous

    But I get the sense that is where we are going. And I’m sure - as I’ve said before - that Poland is gonna end up with nukes
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
  • Can you be impeached for being dangerously senile ?

    Biden hasn't reached that level yet.

    But who knows next week or next month or in six months.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    Carnyx said:

    This guy on YouTube keeps making the complaint that figures of the right have been prosecuted and figures of the left have not.

    Here’s the thing. Trump (as an example) gets taken to court because he breaks the law, not because he is alt right…

    It’s unfair because he is a member of The Legally Challenged Community.

    Sometime ago I met some “penal reformers” who wanted to replace “criminal” with LCC. Because criminal is pejorative, apparently.
    Well, more that criminal identified then as having criminality as an inherent characteristic, perhaps.

    Maybe, "Person With Temporary Legal Difficulties" would be better?
    What's wrong with convict? It's accurate, and it's not value loaded - leaves open the question of innocence/unfair trials. Seeing as a convict has been convicted to undergo penal sanctions in the first place.
    It’s much harder to to turn “convict”‘into a power point slide deck, a charitable cause and whole bunch of nonsense?
    That sounds like the San Francisco “unhoused outreach workers” who earn $250k but who don’t want to actually solve the problem because it makes their job redundant.

    Until Xi Jinping turned up in the city, and all of a sudden the tent cities disappeared overnight.
    https://www.ocregister.com/2023/11/20/it-shouldnt-take-the-arrival-of-xi-jinping-to-clear-the-streets-of-san-francisco/
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,180
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366

    Can you be impeached for being dangerously senile ?

    Biden hasn't reached that level yet.

    But who knows next week or next month or in six months.

    Setting impeachment aside the fact remains Biden's metal faculties are not going to improve as he ages, thy will get worse. I struggle to see what the Dems are trying to achieve with him as candidate.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
    Putin is currently in no position to invade anything else.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
    No, he’s not. He’s doing his deal-making shtick. As @Sandpit correctly notes, if countries start spending 2% on defence - and buying some American kit to guarantee that nuclear umbrella - he’ll make the deal

    But yes, if eu/nato countries refuse to pay for their own defence he will leave them to the mercy of Putin. And why shouldn’t he? Do we have an eternal right to American protection without paying for it? How would you feel about this as an American taxpayer with 2 weeks holiday a year and no welfare state, protecting wealthy Irish and Austrians retiring at 60?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
    Putin is currently in no position to invade anything else.
    Currently.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    I meant Switzerland instead of your choice of Slovenia.

    Switzerland being the epitome of the tax dodging neutralist parasite.

    As to involvement in American wars:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data

    How much use any of those contingents were I don't know.
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Its an interesting question. America pushed its currency and its political ideology in a battle against communism. Trump is basically saying screw that, lets pull back into our own borders.

    There is nothing that forces America to protect Ireland. It does so because it believes it is in its interest as they have a shared ideology. But if America changes its ideology then its no longer shared...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    November - the date of the Presidential election.

    Edit: This is, of course, why all dates should be in ISO format. 2024-11-05. Easy-peasy.
    But don't do what someone did on Friday and use yyyy-mm-dd and then wonder why the date parser failed 4 times out of 5.

    For date time parsing Lower case mm is minutes, upper case mm is months.
    Are we back to this again?
    https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b923ca#file-falsehoods-programming-time-list-md
    :D
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
    Putin is currently in no position to invade anything else.
    Currently.
    He's heading in to his 70s and has just had his military hollowed out. He wont be in a position to do anything much but bully a few small nations in the Caucuses
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    I meant Switzerland instead of your choice of Slovenia.

    Switzerland being the epitome of the tax dodging neutralist parasite.

    As to involvement in American wars:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data

    How much use any of those contingents were I don't know.
    The Swiss do take their own defence quite seriously tho. National service, lots of armed citizens, nuclear bunkers. You wouldn’t want to invade Switzerland- they’d give you a hard time

    You could conquer Ireland in 7 minutes. They have one armoured car with a special blow up shamrock shaped penis mascot
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,532
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Waahey!
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,647
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    The UK can’t “cease defending Ireland” because it’s a huge open back door to the UK if someone wanted to attack (not likely of course) and Ireland know it and so know they don’t have to spend a cent but can still be smug about how peaceful they are which is somewhat easier if you don’t have to make any effort to defend yourself.



  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    Trump pointing at Matt Gaetz while repeatedly calling him Rick Gates.
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1756164250827948384

    Matt is not, yet, a convicted felon.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    edited February 11

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Its an interesting question. America pushed its currency and its political ideology in a battle against communism. Trump is basically saying screw that, lets pull back into our own borders.

    There is nothing that forces America to protect Ireland. It does so because it believes it is in its interest as they have a shared ideology. But if America changes its ideology then its no longer shared...
    Yes. In a way he’s a classic American isolationist

    And it makes sense. No one can threaten America in America, and if America loses interest in policing the world - as they seem to be, and who can blame them - where the fuck is China in the Red Sea? - then the rest of us will have to pony up

    America will lose status but perhaps they don’t care
  • isamisam Posts: 40,571
    🚨 Labour's plans for campaigning in Rochdale have not changed, Sky News understands, despite widespread outrage over candidate Azhar Ali's comments.

    Lisa Nandy has been campaigning in the constituency all morning.

    More:


    https://x.com/realbenbloch/status/1756672697176633645?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • isamisam Posts: 40,571
    Today is the 49th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Leader of the Opposition. Here she is that same year with Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

    https://x.com/richardmarcj/status/1756630445955957248?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • eekeek Posts: 24,504
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Does the reference to “5/11/2023” mean the 11th of May, or the 5th of November?

    November - the date of the Presidential election.

    Edit: This is, of course, why all dates should be in ISO format. 2024-11-05. Easy-peasy.
    But don't do what someone did on Friday and use yyyy-mm-dd and then wonder why the date parser failed 4 times out of 5.

    For date time parsing Lower case mm is minutes, upper case mm is months.
    Are we back to this again?
    https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b923ca#file-falsehoods-programming-time-list-md
    :D
    Years back I did a project for the Foreign Office - there is nothing more fun then trying to schedule a meeting between 3 countries that crosses the date line and features India...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    The UK can’t “cease defending Ireland” because it’s a huge open back door to the UK if someone wanted to attack (not likely of course) and Ireland know it and so know they don’t have to spend a cent but can still be smug about how peaceful they are which is somewhat easier if you don’t have to make any effort to defend yourself.



    We should just demand they pay. Like Trump

    And if they don’t get a bit punchy
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,614
    isam said:

    🚨 Labour's plans for campaigning in Rochdale have not changed, Sky News understands, despite widespread outrage over candidate Azhar Ali's comments.

    Lisa Nandy has been campaigning in the constituency all morning.

    More:


    https://x.com/realbenbloch/status/1756672697176633645?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Parliamentary leper, incoming.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    edited February 11
    Nigelb said:

    Trump pointing at Matt Gaetz while repeatedly calling him Rick Gates.
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1756164250827948384

    Matt is not, yet, a convicted felon.

    Not at all senile...

    Edit - he also got the day of the week wrong, although to be fair other Presidential nominees have done that including JFK.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    I meant Switzerland instead of your choice of Slovenia.

    Switzerland being the epitome of the tax dodging neutralist parasite.

    As to involvement in American wars:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data

    How much use any of those contingents were I don't know.
    The Swiss do take their own defence quite seriously tho. National service, lots of armed citizens, nuclear bunkers. You wouldn’t want to invade Switzerland- they’d give you a hard time

    You could conquer Ireland in 7 minutes. They have one armoured car with a special blow up shamrock shaped penis mascot
    Don't give Braverman ideas...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    And also still sore he beat Trump and she couldn't.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump pointing at Matt Gaetz while repeatedly calling him Rick Gates.
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1756164250827948384

    Matt is not, yet, a convicted felon.

    Not at all senile...

    Edit - he also got the day of the week wrong, although to be fair other Presidential nominees have done that including JFK.
    We could do with some clarity. Nearly every person their age forgets names and calls people by the wrong ones, it is separate from senility. Trump has always been a bit bonkers, so in his case continued bonkers behaviour doesn't really demonstrate senility either.

    They may or may not both be senile, Trump is definitely mad, neither has good name recall.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    If you think that makes her wrong, think about the position in which that logically places you.
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.
  • I know I still use the identity of the Co-op movement as my ID on here, but my former home town really is being offered a basket of turds in this byelection.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,835
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    I meant Switzerland instead of your choice of Slovenia.

    Switzerland being the epitome of the tax dodging neutralist parasite.

    As to involvement in American wars:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data

    How much use any of those contingents were I don't know.
    The Swiss do take their own defence quite seriously tho. National service, lots of armed citizens, nuclear bunkers. You wouldn’t want to invade Switzerland- they’d give you a hard time

    You could conquer Ireland in 7 minutes. They have one armoured car with a special blow up shamrock shaped penis mascot
    Don't give Braverman ideas...
    Also, if you invade Switzerland on a Sunday, you’d be breaking all the anti-noise laws.

    And the Swiss are fanatical about them. They’ve probably got a specially silently, specially vicious anti-tank weapon for that.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 8,924
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Its an interesting question. America pushed its currency and its political ideology in a battle against communism. Trump is basically saying screw that, lets pull back into our own borders.

    There is nothing that forces America to protect Ireland. It does so because it believes it is in its interest as they have a shared ideology. But if America changes its ideology then its no longer shared...
    Yes. In a way he’s a classic American isolationist

    And it makes sense. No one can threaten America in America, and if America loses interest in policing the world - as they seem to be, and who can blame them - where the fuck is China in the Red Sea? - then the rest of us will have to pony up

    America will lose status but perhaps they don’t care
    I'd see it a little differently. He's been going on about allies not paying their way for 40 years. He's proud that he 'beat' a lot of people in business. This is just him saying that the US's allies have been beating them in the business of politics.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,835

    I know I still use the identity of the Co-op movement as my ID on here, but my former home town really is being offered a basket of turds in this byelection.

    Do be so negative about turds.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,180
    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    Carnyx said:

    If you think that makes her wrong, think about the position in which that logically places you.
    yes, I admire hypocrisy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    I know I still use the identity of the Co-op movement as my ID on here, but my former home town really is being offered a basket of turds in this byelection.

    Bit harsh, surely?

    I mean, you've got three candidates two of whom have made stupid remarks about Israel/the Jews and one of whom is an actual more or less card-carrying Nazi.

    A basket of turds* would be far superior.

    *Not necessarily the case for what autocorrect tried to make that, which was 'a basket of Truss.'
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    Hmm

    As I said this does feel like a co-ordinated elite Democrat attempt to dislodge Biden

    First the NYT, now Hillary
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    ydoethur said:

    And also still sore he beat Trump and she couldn't.
    Who cares what a lecturer from the University of Wales, Swansea thinks?

    https://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    Carnyx said:

    If you think that makes her wrong, think about the position in which that logically places you.
    yes, I admire hypocrisy.
    I admire your honesty.

    I despise hypocrisy.

    Except when it's me doing it, of course.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    ydoethur said:

    And also still sore he beat Trump and she couldn't.
    Who cares what a lecturer from the University of Wales, Swansea thinks?

    https://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/
    In the interests of pedantry, The University of Wales, Swansea ceased to exist 17 years ago. You mean 'Swansea University.'
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,647
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    The UK can’t “cease defending Ireland” because it’s a huge open back door to the UK if someone wanted to attack (not likely of course) and Ireland know it and so know they don’t have to spend a cent but can still be smug about how peaceful they are which is somewhat easier if you don’t have to make any effort to defend yourself.



    We should just demand they pay. Like Trump

    And if they don’t get a bit punchy
    You would have to wait until Biden isn’t President as they would go crying to him about the nasty English and he would be confused and think he is Irish and not actually American and declare war on us.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    edited February 11
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    And also still sore he beat Trump and she couldn't.
    Who cares what a lecturer from the University of Wales, Swansea thinks?

    https://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/
    In the interests of pedantry, The University of Wales, Swansea ceased to exist 17 years ago. You mean 'Swansea University.'
    Is it no longer a constituent of that august institution I once attended via University College Cardiff? I still have the tie.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
    Queen Meghan? I like it.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,382
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
    Putin is currently in no position to invade anything else.
    Currently.
    Poland is apparently heavily investing in building up its fleet of tanks. They are not sanguine about Putin's intentions.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    I meant Switzerland instead of your choice of Slovenia.

    Switzerland being the epitome of the tax dodging neutralist parasite.

    As to involvement in American wars:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data

    How much use any of those contingents were I don't know.
    The Swiss do take their own defence quite seriously tho. National service, lots of armed citizens, nuclear bunkers. You wouldn’t want to invade Switzerland- they’d give you a hard time

    You could conquer Ireland in 7 minutes. They have one armoured car with a special blow up shamrock shaped penis mascot
    Last time we had a war with Ireland we lost...
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,614
    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
    If Charles has started chemo he'll be feeling like shit and there's worse to come. But it doesn't preclude a complete recovery to normal health. Eventually.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    The UK can’t “cease defending Ireland” because it’s a huge open back door to the UK if someone wanted to attack (not likely of course) and Ireland know it and so know they don’t have to spend a cent but can still be smug about how peaceful they are which is somewhat easier if you don’t have to make any effort to defend yourself.



    We should just demand they pay. Like Trump

    And if they don’t get a bit punchy
    You would have to wait until Biden isn’t President as they would go crying to him about the nasty English and he would be confused and think he is Irish and not actually American and declare war on us.
    We should demand an island off the west coast of Ireland as a sovereign UK base if they want continued UK protection
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,180
    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
    I just find a Russian Putin apologist going out of his way to make this point on a British website rather strange.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196

    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
    I just find a Russian Putin apologist going out of his way to make this point on a British website rather strange.
    Indeed, Leon has been an enigma for years.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
    If Charles has started chemo he'll be feeling like shit and there's worse to come. But it doesn't preclude a complete recovery to normal health. Eventually.
    I didn’t know that. He’s definitely on chemo?

    Respect to him for even getting out of bed, in that case

    GSTK

  • isamisam Posts: 40,571
    Leon said:

    Harper said:

    King charles looking very frail now on first public appearance since cancer diagnosis.

    Dark.
    Harper is not wrong tho. KCIII does look suddenly very frail. Feck. Another coronation on the way?!

    They will need to reincorporate Harry at this rate
    Poor Charles. He waited so long for the job and now it looks as though it may be either very fleeting, or clouded by illness
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    The UK can’t “cease defending Ireland” because it’s a huge open back door to the UK if someone wanted to attack (not likely of course) and Ireland know it and so know they don’t have to spend a cent but can still be smug about how peaceful they are which is somewhat easier if you don’t have to make any effort to defend yourself.



    We should just demand they pay. Like Trump

    And if they don’t get a bit punchy
    You would have to wait until Biden isn’t President as they would go crying to him about the nasty English and he would be confused and think he is Irish and not actually American and declare war on us.
    We should demand an island off the west coast of Ireland as a sovereign UK base if they want continued UK protection
    Why? We already own six counties.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,571
    edited February 11
    Do we still do tenuous guilt by association?

    From this morning

    Fab women's q&a session with Labour's @lisanandy, MP and Rochdale's brilliant candidate @CllrAzharAli
    It was great to hear Labour's plans for Govt and how places like Rochdale, forgotten by the fictitious Tory levelling up,will be prioritised for growth.
    #GeneralElectionNow


    https://x.com/bev_place/status/1756668858188902663?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    Italy must have the world’s worst national anthem as a proportion of “possible national songs they could have chosen”
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,382

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    I’m really not a Trump fan, but he has a point that Europe has for too long relied on the US for its own defence, and needs to step up.

    If European countries start buying more American weapons, then Trump will be all in favour of keeping NATO alive. He’s a zero-sum type of guy.
    Yes, he absolutely has a point. The free ride for Europe is coming to an end
    Er, the point is that Trump isn't merely complaining about funding contributions. He's actively forming a partnership with Putin to invade Europe.
    Putin is currently in no position to invade anything else.
    Currently.
    He's heading in to his 70s and has just had his military hollowed out. He wont be in a position to do anything much but bully a few small nations in the Caucuses
    Russia had transitioned to a war economy. But it is also facing a demographic cliff edge which could put an end to Putin's geopolitical ambitions if he doesnt crack on. The window will close. He's an oldish man in a hurry.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Donald Trump said on Saturday that as president, he warned Nato allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent” as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.'

    This builds on previous statements from him he would only defend NATO nations spending at least 2% of their gdp on defence
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/11/donald-trump-russia-nato-allies/

    Trump being re-elected is the end of NATO. Why would anyone want to be reliant on this man?

    You could argue, of course, that this is not necessarily a bad thing and that NATO is well past its sell by date. But it would be the end.
    He also has a point. Why on earth should Americans continue to spend blood and treasure defending nations who are easily able to afford a lot more money on defence, but prefer to spend it on early retirement and welfare states that Americans do not get

    Looking at you, Ireland, Austria and Slovenia
    Don't you mean Switzerland ?

    While there's no doubt that the USA has spent treasure I'm not sure what blood it has spent defending Europe in recent decades.

    On the other hand there's been a fair bit of European treasure and blood spent in supporting the USA in its wars.

    Including over 600 British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    No, Austria

    0.77%


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


    How many European countries have got actively and expensively involved in American wars? Britain. Er, occasionally Germany or France. Ummm, anyone else? The Dutch with their brilliant peacekeeping in Bosnia? That wasn’t even an American war yet we relied on them

    The UK should cease defending Ireland until they start paying for it
    The UK can’t “cease defending Ireland” because it’s a huge open back door to the UK if someone wanted to attack (not likely of course) and Ireland know it and so know they don’t have to spend a cent but can still be smug about how peaceful they are which is somewhat easier if you don’t have to make any effort to defend yourself.



    We should just demand they pay. Like Trump

    And if they don’t get a bit punchy
    You would have to wait until Biden isn’t President as they would go crying to him about the nasty English and he would be confused and think he is Irish and not actually American and declare war on us.
    We should demand an island off the west coast of Ireland as a sovereign UK base if they want continued UK protection
    Craggy Island will never accept British rule.

    Though perhaps you could replace Father Jack as Governor General?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    isam said:

    Do we still do tenuous guilt by association?

    From this morning

    Fab women's q&a session with Labour's @lisanandy, MP and Rochdale's brilliant candidate @CllrAzharAli
    It was great to hear Labour's plans for Govt and how places like Rochdale, forgotten by the fictitious Tory levelling up,will be prioritised for growth.
    #GeneralElectionNow


    https://x.com/bev_place/status/1756668858188902663?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Proscribe the anti- Semitic Labour Party! Oh wait, can we also proscribe the pro- Israel Labour Party?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,647
    Leon said:

    Italy must have the world’s worst national anthem as a proportion of “possible national songs they could have chosen”

    What? It’s excellent, like a mini opera before a sports match.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    There are over 1.4 million displaced Palestinians in Rafah and it is the gateway to aid for Gaza - an Israeli offensive there would be catastrophic.

    The fighting must stop now. We need a sustainable ceasefire.

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1756673953970507804?t=sqq1zyR87fAU45fDjrfZcA&s=19

    Does this mean that Starmer now has to demand his own resignation?
This discussion has been closed.