I mean so what if Jesus existed. The new religion had to come from somewhere and if there was a bloke, pale complexion, long flowing beard/hair who was making a big noise about something then all well and good.
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
You certainly can if you are one of the 2 billion Christians still worldwide
Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate. Someone said the Tories were stoking it - no, they're not. The very worst this looks is when someone quotes Keir Starmer - it is STARMER attacking Ali in the form of the absolutist statements issued beforehand.
My solution: 1. Disown Ali. Legally the person runs, not the party. Like the former Green candidate his name stays on the ballot, with a party ID, but everyone made clear he is disowned 2. Suspend the CLP. They heard his comments and then chose to select him. Doing so has brought the party into disrepute in 2 ways - they knew the candidate has a serious issue and did nothing, and then they chose to endorse him.
The end result? Labour show they are tough on bigots and reclaim the high ground. We likely get Gorgeous elected which will highlight the shithousery of the Workers Revolutionary Party and draw the sting out of a potential pro-Hamas vote.
Get it done. Or this will roll on and on and on like an SNP coverup of kids watching footie on a government iPad.
The public are in a different place to last October .
The so called conspiracy theory has a lot more traction , sympathy for Israel has cratered after the relentless scenes of death and destruction in Gaza .
The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet .
Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate. Someone said the Tories were stoking it - no, they're not. The very worst this looks is when someone quotes Keir Starmer - it is STARMER attacking Ali in the form of the absolutist statements issued beforehand.
My solution: 1. Disown Ali. Legally the person runs, not the party. Like the former Green candidate his name stays on the ballot, with a party ID, but everyone made clear he is disowned 2. Suspend the CLP. They heard his comments and then chose to select him. Doing so has brought the party into disrepute in 2 ways - they knew the candidate has a serious issue and did nothing, and then they chose to endorse him.
The end result? Labour show they are tough on bigots and reclaim the high ground. We likely get Gorgeous elected which will highlight the shithousery of the Workers Revolutionary Party and draw the sting out of a potential pro-Hamas vote.
Get it done. Or this will roll on and on and on like an SNP coverup of kids watching footie on a government iPad.
It would be interesting if it produced a Rochdale Neale Hanvey!
There's a plaque outside a Friend's meeting house in Derbyshire that memorialises the life and death of an Austrian Jew who converted to Catholicism in an attempt to escape the Nazis, and ended up becoming a Quaker when in England.
Conversion in these circumstances isn't exactly new.
We took in Jews fleeing persecution and the Nazis, he didn't need to convert
We kept out many Jews fleeing persecution.
But we didn't take in any who only converted to Judaism on arrival in the UK
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
Tough crowd. You'd have been a nightmare for Jesus' followers in 0 AD/BC.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
Do we even know if MO is actually popular? Not that I’ve bothered looking but is there any polling on her v Trump?
I can see she would be popular to an extent with a smallish proportion of voters who might judge her on actions she’s been involved in, popular with Dems who don’t want Trump, popular with people who loved Obama but I have a nagging doubt that for various reasons I think there would be more people who wouldn’t want her than want her.
Frankly I cannot see her as the sort of masochist who would want the intrusion and abuse she would get if she went up against Trump. It would make attacks on Biden seem tame I fear.
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Thanks. Had a bad bought of depression last week.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
I mean so what if Jesus existed. The new religion had to come from somewhere and if there was a bloke, pale complexion, long flowing beard/hair who was making a big noise about something then all well and good.
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
You certainly can if you are one of the 2 billion Christians still worldwide
You are a funny guy. It is endlessly interesting to me (but of course wholly understandable) that people such as you should believe that he died and was resurrected.
Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate. Someone said the Tories were stoking it - no, they're not. The very worst this looks is when someone quotes Keir Starmer - it is STARMER attacking Ali in the form of the absolutist statements issued beforehand.
My solution: 1. Disown Ali. Legally the person runs, not the party. Like the former Green candidate his name stays on the ballot, with a party ID, but everyone made clear he is disowned 2. Suspend the CLP. They heard his comments and then chose to select him. Doing so has brought the party into disrepute in 2 ways - they knew the candidate has a serious issue and did nothing, and then they chose to endorse him.
The end result? Labour show they are tough on bigots and reclaim the high ground. We likely get Gorgeous elected which will highlight the shithousery of the Workers Revolutionary Party and draw the sting out of a potential pro-Hamas vote.
Get it done. Or this will roll on and on and on like an SNP coverup of kids watching footie on a government iPad.
The public are in a different place to last October .
The so called conspiracy theory has a lot more traction , sympathy for Israel has cratered after the relentless scenes of death and destruction in Gaza .
The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet .
Thank you for allowing us to lay to rest the idea that criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
How can you not be lifelong rich from the all the money generated by Monty Python and its spinoffs? The movies, esp Life of Brian and Holy Grail, must surely generate significant royalties. Grail and Brian are regularly counted in the top 20 comedies of all time
Francis Ford Coppola has been bankrupt three times. How the fuck did he manage that?
Maybe it’s the old David Copperfield thing? “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
I suspect that it is more the roller coaster thing. If you invest a fair percentage of your wealth in something as ephemeral as a film you will have the odd disaster as well as the odd spectacular success. I do not pretend to be an expert but it also appears that the US bankruptcy schemes are as focused on trying to control cash flows and restricting diligence on assets as any absolute bankruptcy as we understand it. Hence so many companies seek bankruptcy protection from time to time.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
Welcome back.
For Obama to become the candidate, various increasingly impossible things need to happen: 1. Biden is persuaded to retire. Likely his wife would need to insist with the DNC nodding sympathetically as she did so. 2. Harris is told it won't be her and that she cannot argue the toss. 3. Newsom and any other potential backup candidates told the same 4. All of them comply 5. Only now does Obama come into play. With (surely) Barack brought in to manage the campaign as if the DNC rely on the DNC to run the campaign, they will lose
If Michelle Obama really the best option? I know that all the other options are awful, but Obama? Really? She can't campaign on having the experience America needs, or brilliant policy ideas, or the political strength needed to transform the country.
Her campaign would be "I am not Donald Trump and you used to like my husband". More so if Barack is her Veep nominee (and yes, he could be...)
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
I had no particular interest in the issue and then read Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ" after my then girlfriend suggested it to me after seeing an unrelated lecture of his. He is an historian who specialised in classical science and pre-Christian Judaism, and he also had no particular strength of feeling on the issue (and tended to assume the academic status quo was probably fine) before he was commissioned by a coalition of theists and atheists to do some post-doc research into the matter. After his research he concluded that it was more likely then not in his mind that Jesus was not an historical figure. Even if you aren't convinced by his conclusion, I found the book very interesting for the depths he goes in to Judaism after the destruction of the temple, the history of mystery cults, and the clearly literary and polemic (not historical) nature of the Gospels.
Oh dear heaven. Richard Carrier.
He is not an historian. He is a blogger and author, albeit also the holder of a PhD from Columbia in Ancient History. Leaving aside that recently deep flaws were discovered in it on publication that the examiner missed, he believes the following:
1) That David Irving never denied the Holocaust (written in 2002, the year *after* Irving had lost a libel case because he'd repeatedly and publicly denied the Holocaust).
2) That mathematical probability and frequency are the same thing;
3) That whisky improves brain function;
4) That the Big Bang theory couldn't be correct because it was first proposed by a Christian scholar (it is worth noting he has since dropped this position as he realised it was damaging his credibility);
5) Plus, he is a notorious sex pest who repeatedly lied about his philandering and eventually lost a major libel action over it - the judge commented drily that Carrier 'had provided no evidence in support of his position.'
Other concerns:
6) In the book you reference, he not only rewrote key aspects (particularly the Rank Raglan index) to make it closer to the life of Jesus, at the expense of the heroes it was meant to categorise, but wilfully misrepresented several key scholars, who were not at all happy about it.
7) The book was not, interestingly, peer reviewed by normal processes, rather Carrier asked four of his friends to write recommendations on it to Sheffield Phoenix, which was in the process of going bust at the time and seized on anything it thought might sell. He has since repeatedly described it as 'peer reviewed.'
Quoting Richard Carrier on the subject of the historicity of Jesus is the equivalent of quoting a creationist in opposition to Richard Dawkins on the subject of biology.
He is not an academic and he will never be one. Because his work is not reliable. In fact, I'll go further. It's fraudulent.
I had heard of number 5 on that list - and that made me discredit him personally - but I wasn't aware of any of the other points here listed that meant he should be academically discredited and was only aware of critiques of his work that came from a clearly theistic bent. I would personally say that the Rank Raglan aspect wasn't a particularly interesting aspect to me - I was more interested by early Jewish apocrypha and the literary purpose and construction of the gospels - but would again wouldn't claim I'm personally an expert nor care that much about the topic.
To be fair, I doubt if many people who read his book do know much about him - and most of those who do know much read it for confirmation bias, I.e. they are 'fundies' who read it to reassure themselves they're not talking bullshit. The likes of David Fitzgerald, Raphael Lataster, Neil Godfrey, Tom Harpur etc.
I only knew because I wrote a review of his work on German history and saw within about five minutes that it was fraudulent. That led me to wonder what else he had been writing on. So I did some research, and oh boy I found out.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
So it’s in both sides interest to have some form of cessation of hostilities.
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Thanks. Had a bad bought of depression last week.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
So it’s in both sides interest to have some form of cessation of hostilities.
Putin can always withdraw from internationally recognised Ukrainian land.
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Thanks. Had a bad bought of depression last week.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
How can you not be lifelong rich from the all the money generated by Monty Python and its spinoffs? The movies, esp Life of Brian and Holy Grail, must surely generate significant royalties. Grail and Brian are regularly counted in the top 20 comedies of all time
Francis Ford Coppola has been bankrupt three times. How the fuck did he manage that?
Without googling, I'm going to say: divorce
I know that is why Cleese is relatively skint. Multiple divorces
Quite the opposite in fact: he has a sixty-year marriage. His bankruptcies is down to the fact that he takes risks, as in mortgage-the-house-whoops risks.
You may recall me saying that we have a crop of great directors coming to the end of their lives, with very mixed results: Scorsese probably did best with "Killers of the Flower Moon", Spielberg and Mann did middling with "The Fabelmans" and "Ferrari", Ridley Scott absolutely shat the bed with "Napoleon". But they all failed in predictable ways: Scorsese did a film with brilliant detail, fine atmosphere, great performances and was too long and boring. Ridley couldn't find a good script if you shoved it up his arse and delivered a beautifully shot warm steaming turd.
But Coppola is wildly unpredictable and his next up is "Megalopolis", which could be great, middling, or poo. We won't know until it's out.
If you like middlebrow (hah!) cineastes on YouTube banging on about films, here's two you may like about Coppola
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
A lot of MPs would lose the whip if you enforced that idea. Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that a lot of MPs would lose the whip.
Really? Apart from this one Labour candidate, how many MPs can you name pushing crackpot and insulting conspiracytheories?
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Thanks. Had a bad bought of depression last week.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
I also have difficulty with Black Dog - and happy to have that cup of tea (as long as you're happy to sit face to face with a republican).
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
A lot of MPs would lose the whip if you enforced that idea. Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that a lot of MPs would lose the whip.
Really? Apart from this one Labour candidate, how many MPs can you name pushing crackpot and insulting conspiracytheories?
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
So it’s in both sides interest to have some form of cessation of hostilities.
Putin can always withdraw from internationally recognised Ukrainian land.
Why the F should he do that? He's not only winning (in his terms), he has probably won (in his terms)
Ukraine will likely be partioned in a Korea-style armistice (which I predicted about a year ago), Putin will keep his chunk, the rest of Ukraine will survive
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
If Russia invaded France and Germany it certainly wouldn't be the US the beneficiary of NATO
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Thanks. Had a bad bought of depression last week.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
(The only person on that list who is in any way religious, so far as I know, is McGrath.)
It is worth noting that all of these are blog posts of one description or another. That is because to my knowledge there has only ever been one review of his book in an actual academic journal, which compared his knowledge to a first year theology undergraduate and his writing style to evangelical apologetics. Petterson's review is available here: https://relegere.org/relegere/article/view/702
In response Carrier accused her of being a Christian out to get him, which led the editor of Relegere to clarify Petterson is an atheist.
Ehrman does great work on popularising modern academic understanding of the Bible, and particularly how the New Testament was written and re-written. I’d recommend any of his books. He’s an atheist. He’ll lecture you for hours on the flaws and inconsistencies in accounts of Jesus’s life, but he does believe there was a historical Jesus.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
If you look at all your posts on this thread, across different subjects - you are a disrupter. You are Donald Trump.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Truth isn’t important to you. Disrupting is.
I mean I'm a literal anarchist anti-fascist and he is the literal embodiment of where capital meets fascism. But sure, there is no difference between good things and bad things.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Thanks. Had a bad bought of depression last week.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
Don't see the attaction, CR, but then I don't like lapdogs either.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
So it’s in both sides interest to have some form of cessation of hostilities.
Putin can always withdraw from internationally recognised Ukrainian land.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
Ukraine also has women and children who will die to defend their homeland, while even many Russian men are reluctant to fight
Yep, that should cheer them up in Kyiv and Odesa
ARM THE TODDLERS
They could also put warheads at the front of baby strollers, and send them spinning along the mud at the Russian army, sure the baby will be blown up, but it will be so weird it might win the war overnight, because reasons
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
A lot of MPs would lose the whip if you enforced that idea. Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that a lot of MPs would lose the whip.
Really? Apart from this one Labour candidate, how many MPs can you name pushing crackpot and insulting conspiracytheories?
I mean so what if Jesus existed. The new religion had to come from somewhere and if there was a bloke, pale complexion, long flowing beard/hair who was making a big noise about something then all well and good.
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
The general argument is Jesus was more of a celestial figure - a la the angel that Mohammed claimed to get the Quran from. I also feel that the lack of historicity of many Jewish figures (such as Moses) also suggests a pre existing tradition of creating history for non historical religious figures.
Good Queen Bess said she wouldn't try to make windows into people's souls.
PB Tories used to say Britain should concentrate on helping Christian refugees, rather than Muslim ones.
Now, instead of accepting a conversion at face value, and asking their co-religionist to help out at the Church Fete by carrying the tea urn, PB Tories are willing to run the risk of sending genuine Christians back to a martyr's death, because of their obsession they everyone else is abusing the system.
Well it’s one of those situations where any policy will be problematic. Like benefits fraud. You either have a policy that lets ne’er do wells in on false pretences, or a policy that sends devout Christians to be persecuted abroad.
Should asylum be based on the situation when you entered the country?
Getting baptised after you arrive here (or getting married or a cat) shouldn’t create retrospective rights
Let’s say I come to the UK from country X. While I’m here, there’s a coup d’etat in country X and a new government comes in, who start a genocide against tree kangaroos. Should my claim for asylum be based on the situation when I entered the country, or the situation now? Asylum claims have to recognise the situation now.
Maybe I come to the UK a nobody in my home country, but while I’m in the UK, I’m swiping on Tinder and I match with someone who is a prominent political dissident back home. We fall in love and marry. Suddenly, as her husband, I’ve become the target of a repressive regime. Again, shouldn’t my asylum claim recognise the now rather than the then?
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
The answer to "who will do the campaigning?" is easy enough- social media bots. Parties in general and Conservatives in particular don't need people as long as they have money.
And the arguments against May are the same as they always were.
1. The probability of losing in May is 99 % or thereabouts. Even if the midpoint prediction for December is worse, the probability of losing is (say) 98 %, because the horse may somehow learn to sing.
2. There are few things more ex than an ex politician. Might as well keep the party going another seven months, even if it has reached the stage where people are throwing up behind the sofa.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
“Netanyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched.”
But it is far fetched, it is ignorant and stupid to think like that.
Whenever wages or the cost of living get mentioned, the right get all huffy. We're no longer in the age of hair shirts - unless you are in the bottom decide (and we'll come back to them in a minute).
For so many people in so many decently paid and well respected jobs, it doesn't matter how hard they work. Money remains a concern. For most of the people in the jobs we claim are vital for society (lets take TAs as one example), wages and conditions are genuinely insulting.
We then conflate multiple issues together. Wages are low and the cost of living high, so we need women to go back to work after having a child. But childcare costs too much. After much complaining the government announces free childcare, but refuses to pay for it.
Thats the majority of people in the middle. At the bottom, that 10% is truly screwed. They pay a poverty tax - everything costs more (rent, electricity) with a very steep marginal tax rate to get through if they are able to try and work they way out of that decile.
Back in my day ( 1970s). We had kids at school who were living in council houses with one working parent who were genuinely poor.
By the 2000s aspirational Thatcher children had their decent hospital, decent school, a mortgage, their second hand Range Rover, and a sleeve of tattoos to show off on a modest TUI holiday. These people I suspect voted Brexit, Boris and detested the Labour Party as the high taxation party of envy. This is the cohort that has been screwed hardest by austerity. The working poor is again "a thing".
The reason (replying to @RochdalePioneers not you but on an iPhone and can’t be arsed to find his post) is the redefinition of the term “poor” from absolute to relative poverty.
Both have value as measures but the use of relative poverty in headlines and reporting means that *no matter how good a job the government does* the poor are always with us.
That creates a recipe for endless government intervention rather than solving a problem.
It’s not the case that no matter how good a job the government does, the relative poor are always with us. It is the case that some changes in overall wealth don’t impact on the relative figures, but it is possible to reduce the relative figures. You just need to do something different, namely reduce economic inequality at the lower end.
Fair point
But then it’s a misnomer - it’s about reducing economic inequality not reducing poverty.
Studies show that health outcomes are worse for people who are relatively poor in their country. What language should I use to describe this state of being relatively poor?
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
I suspect Putin is just out of touch, like most dictators. He had a great opportunity to directly influence American (and to a lesser extent European) public opinion, and he completely fluffed it.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
If you look at all your posts on this thread, across different subjects - you are a disrupter. You are Donald Trump.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Truth isn’t important to you. Disrupting is.
I mean I'm a literal anarchist anti-fascist and he is the literal embodiment of where capital meets fascism. But sure, there is no difference between good things and bad things.
According to your theories, do you not literally live in the imperial metropole while people are bombed to ensure you get access to a supply of cheap goods?
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
I suspect Putin is just out of touch, like most dictators. He had a great opportunity to directly influence American (and to a lesser extent European) public opinion, and he completely fluffed it.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
You would have thought Putin's and Carlson's teams would have discussed this before hand.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
“Netanyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched.”
But it is far fetched, it is ignorant and stupid to think like that.
Yeah, Netanyahu didn't need an excuse - the long term plan was to do it slowly any way.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
Welcome back.
For Obama to become the candidate, various increasingly impossible things need to happen: 1. Biden is persuaded to retire. Likely his wife would need to insist with the DNC nodding sympathetically as she did so. 2. Harris is told it won't be her and that she cannot argue the toss. 3. Newsom and any other potential backup candidates told the same 4. All of them comply 5. Only now does Obama come into play. With (surely) Barack brought in to manage the campaign as if the DNC rely on the DNC to run the campaign, they will lose
If Michelle Obama really the best option? I know that all the other options are awful, but Obama? Really? She can't campaign on having the experience America needs, or brilliant policy ideas, or the political strength needed to transform the country.
Her campaign would be "I am not Donald Trump and you used to like my husband". More so if Barack is her Veep nominee (and yes, he could be...)
I think that's right.
She does have emotional intelligence in spades, and is also intelligent all round, but her political interest (by her own admission) isn't there at all, and she doesn't have the skills, interest or experience to deploy herself in that way even if she did.
Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate. Someone said the Tories were stoking it - no, they're not. The very worst this looks is when someone quotes Keir Starmer - it is STARMER attacking Ali in the form of the absolutist statements issued beforehand.
My solution: 1. Disown Ali. Legally the person runs, not the party. Like the former Green candidate his name stays on the ballot, with a party ID, but everyone made clear he is disowned 2. Suspend the CLP. They heard his comments and then chose to select him. Doing so has brought the party into disrepute in 2 ways - they knew the candidate has a serious issue and did nothing, and then they chose to endorse him.
The end result? Labour show they are tough on bigots and reclaim the high ground. We likely get Gorgeous elected which will highlight the shithousery of the Workers Revolutionary Party and draw the sting out of a potential pro-Hamas vote.
Get it done. Or this will roll on and on and on like an SNP coverup of kids watching footie on a government iPad.
It would be interesting if it produced a Rochdale Neale Hanvey!
Would it? Ultimately, Hanvey was elected by people wanting an SNP MP, and after a period of suspension, the SNP quietly re-admitted him. If Labour kicked Ali out, he’d probably win, and then be re-admitted to the party in a few months. His only risk would be if a general election was held in May, but that’s not going to happen (pace Moonrabbit).
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
I suspect Putin is just out of touch, like most dictators. He had a great opportunity to directly influence American (and to a lesser extent European) public opinion, and he completely fluffed it.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
You would have thought Putin's and Carlson's teams would have discussed this before hand.
They don't do healthy argument at the Kremlin, Comrade.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
Spot on.
However, there is a specific (and I suspect bullshit) story doing the rounds that Michelle Obama met with a number of hedge funds at the Obama Foundation conference in November. At this, she (allegedly) said she was considering running.
This reeks of shit for a number of reasons:
(1) This isn't an investment conference, so why would hedge funds be there? (2) M Obama would only be meeting with hedge funds if she was looking to raise money for a run, not if she was abstractly thinking of doing so
But most importantly:
(3) She has never shown the slightest interest in being President.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
The important thing is: what can and should we do?
The more modern NATO equipment has been observed to better protect the lives of the soldiers inside it - so the more equipment we provide the fewer casualties Ukraine will suffer.
If we provide more long range weapons, then Ukraine will be able to destroy ammunition and equipment before it reaches the frontline - and so Ukraine will suffer fewer casualties.
If Ukraine does decide to reach a ceasefire, its hand in any negotiations will be strengthened by the support we provide.
I come to the same conclusion. We should provide as much support to Ukraine as we are able. If we don't do so it will have consequences for us.
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
If Russia invaded France and Germany it certainly wouldn't be the US the beneficiary of NATO
Assuming Trump lifted a finger to support France and Germany against the Russian invasion.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
“Netanyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched.”
But it is far fetched, it is ignorant and stupid to think like that.
It’s quite simple, really. It’s about fixing reality to match your position.
1) I feel for the plight of the Palestinians 2) So, yay for Team Palestine 3) Boo for Team Israel 4) But some Palestinians did a Bad Thing 5) But they are My Team. I am Good and so My Team is only Good 6) So Bad Thing was really done by The Other Team 7) So Team Palestine is All Good Again
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
If you look at all your posts on this thread, across different subjects - you are a disrupter. You are Donald Trump.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Truth isn’t important to you. Disrupting is.
I mean I'm a literal anarchist anti-fascist and he is the literal embodiment of where capital meets fascism. But sure, there is no difference between good things and bad things.
According to your theories, do you not literally live in the imperial metropole while people are bombed to ensure you get access to a supply of cheap goods?
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
I mean so what if Jesus existed. The new religion had to come from somewhere and if there was a bloke, pale complexion, long flowing beard/hair who was making a big noise about something then all well and good.
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
You certainly can if you are one of the 2 billion Christians still worldwide
I would have thought that it would be pretty hard to say anything on the matter if you've been chucked out of the UK and put to death for apostasy in your home country.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
If Russia invaded France and Germany it certainly wouldn't be the US the beneficiary of NATO
Umm I think the idea is that there is an absolute commitment to mutual defence and that deters attacks, so the commitment itself saves everyone a lot of trouble. Seems to have worked so far, in the sense that Russia, for example, has invaded a few neighbours, but not any that are members of NATO no matter how small the country or how big a Russian minority they have.
NATO's Article 5 has only been invoked once - after the Sept 11 attacks on the USA.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
“Netanyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched.”
But it is far fetched, it is ignorant and stupid to think like that.
It’s quite simple, really. It’s about fixing reality to match your position.
1) I feel for the plight of the Palestinians 2) So, yay for Team Palestine 3) Boo for Team Israel 4) But some Palestinians did a Bad Thing 5) But they are My Team. I am Good and so My Team is only Good 6) So Bad Thing was really done by The Other Team 7) So Team Palestine is All Good Again
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
Ukraine also has women and children who will die to defend their homeland, while even many Russian men are reluctant to fight
Yep, that should cheer them up in Kyiv and Odesa
ARM THE TODDLERS
They could also put warheads at the front of baby strollers, and send them spinning along the mud at the Russian army, sure the baby will be blown up, but it will be so weird it might win the war overnight, because reasons
The Ukranians have nothing to lose in defending their homeland in a way invading Russians whose homeland is another nation don't
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Worth saying they do need to decide by or on March 25th. If they announce it a day later the election date would be May 9th as you need 25 working days and Easter makes that calculation slightly more complex.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
If you look at all your posts on this thread, across different subjects - you are a disrupter. You are Donald Trump.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Truth isn’t important to you. Disrupting is.
I mean I'm a literal anarchist anti-fascist and he is the literal embodiment of where capital meets fascism. But sure, there is no difference between good things and bad things.
According to your theories, do you not literally live in the imperial metropole while people are bombed to ensure you get access to a supply of cheap goods?
Yes - I live in the world.
You could choose to be a literal anarchist anti-fascist by joining one of these communes in Syria.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Indeed. Russia has a much lower population density. Most of Russia is frozen swamp.
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
Reading the history of the controversies over the memorials to the Great War fallen provides ample evidence for that - especially when the elite tried to take over the commemorations.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
Not the Christian Old Testament, though. That's only one millennium and some centuries.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
If you look at all your posts on this thread, across different subjects - you are a disrupter. You are Donald Trump.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Truth isn’t important to you. Disrupting is.
I mean I'm a literal anarchist anti-fascist and he is the literal embodiment of where capital meets fascism. But sure, there is no difference between good things and bad things.
According to your theories, do you not literally live in the imperial metropole while people are bombed to ensure you get access to a supply of cheap goods?
Yes - I live in the world.
You could choose to be a literal anarchist anti-fascist by joining one of these communes in Syria.
I mean I do what I can here; I organise against street fascism and are part of organisations that aim to counter fascism. But also, this argument is facile -
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This guy died on Ukrainian soil, for Ukraine, so your example is fatuous
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
If Russia invaded France and Germany it certainly wouldn't be the US the beneficiary of NATO
Umm I think the idea is that there is an absolute commitment to mutual defence and that deters attacks, so the commitment itself saves everyone a lot of trouble. Seems to have worked so far, in the sense that Russia, for example, has invaded a few neighbours, but not any that are members of NATO no matter how small the country or how big a Russian minority they have.
NATO's Article 5 has only been invoked once - after the Sept 11 attacks on the USA.
True but the US could have invaded Afghanistan on its own and indeed it was US Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden.
Indeed the US could defeat any other nation on its own, including Russia, except perhaps China
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
Comments
The so called conspiracy theory has a lot more traction , sympathy for Israel has cratered after the relentless scenes of death and destruction in Gaza .
The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet .
I got 4/1 when news of Labour's problems broke
Best price now 9/4
I can see she would be popular to an extent with a smallish proportion of voters who might judge her on actions she’s been involved in, popular with Dems who don’t want Trump, popular with people who loved Obama but I have a nagging doubt that for various reasons I think there would be more people who wouldn’t want her than want her.
Frankly I cannot see her as the sort of masochist who would want the intrusion and abuse she would get if she went up against Trump. It would make attacks on Biden seem tame I fear.
Just dipping my toe in the water this week. Seeing what it's like.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
The aim is that a viable business emerges at the other end with some opportunity for recovery by creditors
Of course Trump has abused that concept massively
For Obama to become the candidate, various increasingly impossible things need to happen:
1. Biden is persuaded to retire. Likely his wife would need to insist with the DNC nodding sympathetically as she did so.
2. Harris is told it won't be her and that she cannot argue the toss.
3. Newsom and any other potential backup candidates told the same
4. All of them comply
5. Only now does Obama come into play. With (surely) Barack brought in to manage the campaign as if the DNC rely on the DNC to run the campaign, they will lose
If Michelle Obama really the best option? I know that all the other options are awful, but Obama? Really? She can't campaign on having the experience America needs, or brilliant policy ideas, or the political strength needed to transform the country.
Her campaign would be "I am not Donald Trump and you used to like my husband". More so if Barack is her Veep nominee (and yes, he could be...)
I only knew because I wrote a review of his work on German history and saw within about five minutes that it was fraudulent. That led me to wonder what else he had been writing on. So I did some research, and oh boy I found out.
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
Here is one exchange with @BartholomewRoberts
BartholomewRoberts said:
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied:
.
"I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4505200#Comment_4505200
The BBC, today:
"Exhausted Ukraine struggles to find new men for front line"
"the price Ukraine is paying to defend itself is already immense.
When I ask Pavlo whether he's lost friends in the fighting, he admits that there's "almost no one left" from his entire company.
"The only ones left are [injured] like me. The others are dead."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68255490
The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-call-election-march-32107086
They are much less important for general elections when 65-70% vote unless in very marginal seats which end up with majorities of less than 1000
You may recall me saying that we have a crop of great directors coming to the end of their lives, with very mixed results: Scorsese probably did best with "Killers of the Flower Moon", Spielberg and Mann did middling with "The Fabelmans" and "Ferrari", Ridley Scott absolutely shat the bed with "Napoleon". But they all failed in predictable ways: Scorsese did a film with brilliant detail, fine atmosphere, great performances and was too long and boring. Ridley couldn't find a good script if you shoved it up his arse and delivered a beautifully shot warm steaming turd.
But Coppola is wildly unpredictable and his next up is "Megalopolis", which could be great, middling, or poo. We won't know until it's out.
If you like middlebrow (hah!) cineastes on YouTube banging on about films, here's two you may like about Coppola
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/15/penny-mordaunt-repeatedly-advocated-use-of-homeopathy-on-nhs
Edit: in fairness, not just these two: look at the signatories:
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/41282/british-medical-association-motions-on-homeopathy
Ukraine will likely be partioned in a Korea-style armistice (which I predicted about a year ago), Putin will keep his chunk, the rest of Ukraine will survive
Would drive MAGA's Crazy
Or should I say crazier
Nice to see you back.
ARM THE TODDLERS
They could also put warheads at the front of baby strollers, and send them spinning along the mud at the Russian army, sure the baby will be blown up, but it will be so weird it might win the war overnight, because reasons
Maybe I come to the UK a nobody in my home country, but while I’m in the UK, I’m swiping on Tinder and I match with someone who is a prominent political dissident back home. We fall in love and marry. Suddenly, as her husband, I’ve become the target of a repressive regime. Again, shouldn’t my asylum claim recognise the now rather than the then?
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
And the arguments against May are the same as they always were.
1. The probability of losing in May is 99 % or thereabouts. Even if the midpoint prediction for December is worse, the probability of losing is (say) 98 %, because the horse may somehow learn to sing.
2. There are few things more ex than an ex politician. Might as well keep the party going another seven months, even if it has reached the stage where people are throwing up behind the sofa.
1. Ask Putin to withdraw to the internationally recognised borders. I mean, that's genius. Ask him. Watch him cower. He will almost certainly fold
And if that doesn't work
2. Arm all the three year olds in Ukraine, and send them to war in Bakhmut, with their teddy bears
But it is far fetched, it is ignorant and stupid to think like that.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
https://twitter.com/mag_worden
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68255490
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
She does have emotional intelligence in spades, and is also intelligent all round, but her political interest (by her own admission) isn't there at all, and she doesn't have the skills, interest or experience to deploy herself in that way even if she did.
https://twitter.com/mag_worden/status/1755724906120020321/photo/1
However, there is a specific (and I suspect bullshit) story doing the rounds that Michelle Obama met with a number of hedge funds at the Obama Foundation conference in November. At this, she (allegedly) said she was considering running.
This reeks of shit for a number of reasons:
(1) This isn't an investment conference, so why would hedge funds be there?
(2) M Obama would only be meeting with hedge funds if she was looking to raise money for a run, not if she was abstractly thinking of doing so
But most importantly:
(3) She has never shown the slightest interest in being President.
The more modern NATO equipment has been observed to better protect the lives of the soldiers inside it - so the more equipment we provide the fewer casualties Ukraine will suffer.
If we provide more long range weapons, then Ukraine will be able to destroy ammunition and equipment before it reaches the frontline - and so Ukraine will suffer fewer casualties.
If Ukraine does decide to reach a ceasefire, its hand in any negotiations will be strengthened by the support we provide.
I come to the same conclusion. We should provide as much support to Ukraine as we are able. If we don't do so it will have consequences for us.
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
1) I feel for the plight of the Palestinians
2) So, yay for Team Palestine
3) Boo for Team Israel
4) But some Palestinians did a Bad Thing
5) But they are My Team. I am Good and so My Team is only Good
6) So Bad Thing was really done by The Other Team
7) So Team Palestine is All Good Again
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
NATO's Article 5 has only been invoked once - after the Sept 11 attacks on the USA.
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This guy died on Ukrainian soil, for Ukraine, so your example is fatuous
Indeed the US could defeat any other nation on its own, including Russia, except perhaps China