Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
Have there ever been any polls regarding the banning of guns?
Good question. I’d imagine there would be a small majority in favour of retaining them. But, fuck it. Leaders gotta lead. Ban the fucking things Biden and let Trump argue against it.
I would guess the Democrats would be 60 - 40 in favour and the Republicans would be 90 - 10 against.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
Have there ever been any polls regarding the banning of guns?
Good question. I’d imagine there would be a small majority in favour of retaining them. But, fuck it. Leaders gotta lead. Ban the fucking things Biden and let Trump argue against it.
I would guess the Democrats would be 60 - 40 in favour and the Republicans would be 90 - 10 against.
And what about independents? I just want to see US public opinion regardless of political affiliation
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Fair points. But, he could make it a campaign issue. And he should.
The Scottish Nationalists have found the latest controversy that they want to concentrate on. Apparently those students of Scottish history have discovered that the cafe in Edinburgh Castle is called the Redcoat Cafe. In fact it has been called that since it opened nearly 30 years ago.
Clearly changing this calumny is now a priority for the Scottish Government.
I feel somewhat ambivalent. When they are wasting time on this nonsense at least they are not screwing up something more important.
We Scots are thinking of opening a cafe in London called “You got fucked at Bannockburn”. I assume you will all be in favour.
"In the Year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland - starving and outnumbered - charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets; they fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom."
I remember that line, and every time I hear it I shout out "what does a warrior poet fight like?" Are quills involved? Do they take inkwells into battle? Silly line.
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Unless I’m misreading that I can’t see a survey of the general public that isn’t filtered by party ID.
“64% of Americans support stricter gun control laws, 36% oppose it. 54% of Americans believe that such laws will reduce the number of deaths and killings of citizens with firearms, and 58% believe that the government can take effective action to prevent mass shootings. 36% believe the presence of guns makes public places less safe, 32% believe allowing gun owners to carry their guns in public makes those places safer, and 32% believe it makes no difference. The results had a margin for error of plus or minus 3.7 points.” - CNN poll from 2023
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Unfortunately I don't see even Mr Chump post-Downfall if it arrives generating a 2/3 Majority for the Democrats in both houses, and majorities in 3/4 of State Legislatures.
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Unless I’m misreading that I can’t see a survey of the general public that isn’t filtered by party ID.
“64% of Americans support stricter gun control laws, 36% oppose it. 54% of Americans believe that such laws will reduce the number of deaths and killings of citizens with firearms, and 58% believe that the government can take effective action to prevent mass shootings. 36% believe the presence of guns makes public places less safe, 32% believe allowing gun owners to carry their guns in public makes those places safer, and 32% believe it makes no difference. The results had a margin for error of plus or minus 3.7 points.” - CNN poll from 2023
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
Okay. So do 64% of the US public support banning the fucking things?
What's so surprising about landslides, with or without canids? Only to be expected with the combination of all this weather and the nature of IoW geology.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Unfortunately I don't see even Mr Chump post-Downfall if it arrives generating a 2/3 Majority for the Democrats in both houses, and majorities in 3/4 of State Legislatures.
Even for a rational overhaul of US firearms law.
Yes, but so what? Campaign on banning the fucking things and win a mandate to change the constitution (if necessary).
The Scottish Nationalists have found the latest controversy that they want to concentrate on. Apparently those students of Scottish history have discovered that the cafe in Edinburgh Castle is called the Redcoat Cafe. In fact it has been called that since it opened nearly 30 years ago.
Clearly changing this calumny is now a priority for the Scottish Government.
I feel somewhat ambivalent. When they are wasting time on this nonsense at least they are not screwing up something more important.
We Scots are thinking of opening a cafe in London called “You got fucked at Bannockburn”. I assume you will all be in favour.
"In the Year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland - starving and outnumbered - charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets; they fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom."
I remember that line, and every time I hear it I shout out "what does a warrior poet fight like?" Are quills involved? Do they take inkwells into battle? Silly line.
Perhaps they recite rhymes:
Roses are red, Violets are blue, I'll cut off your head, And disembowel you...
Isn't the problem approximately this: Virtually everyone in the USA has a gun or ten, plus enough ammo to start a small war. There is no register of guns, and thus who has got what is pretty much unknown. If you banned guns tomorrow, some would get handed in, and plenty wouldn't. There would be a strong inverse relationship between those who hand in their guns and those whom you would most like to disarm. Therefore, banning guns probably actually causes some kinds of gun crime to increase - e.g. undertaking armed robbery is much less risky if you are sure the target is unarmed.
It's not clear that turning the USA from a place where everyone is armed to the teeth into a place where only the criminals and the right wing nutjobs are armed is actually much of an improvement.
Note - I'm not against gun control; I wouldn't want a US style free for all here; I'm just not convinced there is a workable way to change the status quo in the US, given where they are now. In some ways it's rather like the problems we have with teenagers stabbing each other with carving knives; it's basically impossible to prevent teenagers from accessing carving knives, the best we can do is make carrying one without a valid reason an offence and do a lot of stop and search type activity in problem areas; and even then a kid stabs another every week or so.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Unfortunately I don't see even Mr Chump post-Downfall if it arrives generating a 2/3 Majority for the Democrats in both houses, and majorities in 3/4 of State Legislatures.
Even for a rational overhaul of US firearms law.
Yes, but so what? Campaign on banning the fucking things and win a mandate to change the constitution (if necessary).
No need to change the Constitution. Reinstate the ban on automatic weapons, require proper licensing.
Or best of all; make gun manufacturers legally liable the same as all other products, for death and injury caused by misuse.
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Unless I’m misreading that I can’t see a survey of the general public that isn’t filtered by party ID.
“64% of Americans support stricter gun control laws, 36% oppose it. 54% of Americans believe that such laws will reduce the number of deaths and killings of citizens with firearms, and 58% believe that the government can take effective action to prevent mass shootings. 36% believe the presence of guns makes public places less safe, 32% believe allowing gun owners to carry their guns in public makes those places safer, and 32% believe it makes no difference. The results had a margin for error of plus or minus 3.7 points.” - CNN poll from 2023
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
Okay. So do 64% of the US public support banning the fucking things?
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Unfortunately I don't see even Mr Chump post-Downfall if it arrives generating a 2/3 Majority for the Democrats in both houses, and majorities in 3/4 of State Legislatures.
Even for a rational overhaul of US firearms law.
Yes, but so what? Campaign on banning the fucking things and win a mandate to change the constitution (if necessary).
No need to change the Constitution. Reinstate the ban on automatic weapons, require proper licensing.
Or best of all; make gun manufacturers legally liable the same as all other products, for death and injury caused by misuse.
Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and basically don’t feature in crime in the US. Despite every other movie…
Semi automatic weapons are where the real issues are.
Going after the gun manufacturers runs into legal problems. Mainly to do with definitions of proper use, IIRC.
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Unless I’m misreading that I can’t see a survey of the general public that isn’t filtered by party ID.
“64% of Americans support stricter gun control laws, 36% oppose it. 54% of Americans believe that such laws will reduce the number of deaths and killings of citizens with firearms, and 58% believe that the government can take effective action to prevent mass shootings. 36% believe the presence of guns makes public places less safe, 32% believe allowing gun owners to carry their guns in public makes those places safer, and 32% believe it makes no difference. The results had a margin for error of plus or minus 3.7 points.” - CNN poll from 2023
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
Okay. So do 64% of the US public support banning the fucking things?
No. They only support tighter controls. The sort of basic sensible stuff any reasonble person would expect. Background criminal and mental health checks, cooling off periods, age limits and registration.
But even some of those (registration) struggle to get a majority. There is simply not the appetite in the US for a ban.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Fair points. But, he could make it a campaign issue. And he should.
Even if it were a campaign promise it is not something he can fulfil without changing the constiutution and the power to do that does not rest in his hands.
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Unless I’m misreading that I can’t see a survey of the general public that isn’t filtered by party ID.
“64% of Americans support stricter gun control laws, 36% oppose it. 54% of Americans believe that such laws will reduce the number of deaths and killings of citizens with firearms, and 58% believe that the government can take effective action to prevent mass shootings. 36% believe the presence of guns makes public places less safe, 32% believe allowing gun owners to carry their guns in public makes those places safer, and 32% believe it makes no difference. The results had a margin for error of plus or minus 3.7 points.” - CNN poll from 2023
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
Okay. So do 64% of the US public support banning the fucking things?
No. They only support tighter controls. The sort of basic sensible stuff any reasonble person would expect. Background criminal and mental health checks, cooling off periods, age limits and registration.
But even some of those (registration) struggle to get a majority. There is simply not the appetite in the US for a ban.
It’s also mostly state rather than federal legislation, which incorporate most of the above to some degree already. There’s a few stories of journalists who thought they could just turn up at a gun shop in the middle of nowhere and walk away with a firearm.
Online abuse is translating into real-life abuse. We have lost a sense of boundaries and distance, where events over there to somebody else are interpreted as events over here to us. When a candidate MP thinks that fighting for Hamas is more important than his constituents, something is badly wrong. People should feel free to practice their religion and have allowances made for that, but that requires tolerance and that has been mocked to death. How long before somebody says that this antisemitic uptick is just because more are reported, or what about the victims on the other side? The Internet has bought us all together, and we do what we always do when we are bought into close proximity: kill each other. Damnation, this is not good.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Fair points. But, he could make it a campaign issue. And he should.
As Starmer should, a wealth tax, to rebuild and restructure the country.
Thankfully there’s been a recent Western programme to put thousands of small communications satellites in orbit, which would be all that impossible for an adversary to take out. The somewhat hot-headed CEO of the company involved, has also been put firmly in his place when it comes to military use of the technology.
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
The issue is that Biden can't just change the constitution and almost certainly doesn't have the votes in the House or the States to do so. And to be honest for all that I agree with your aims, setting the precedent that the President can change the constitution more easily is not something I would fancy doing with the prospect of Trump being back in the White House in less than a year.
Fair points. But, he could make it a campaign issue. And he should.
As Starmer should, a wealth tax, to rebuild and restructure the country.
But will he, hell?
The problem with a ‘weath tax’, is that in order to propose one you first need to define the term.
The vast majority of people have little ‘weath’ bar the roof over their head and their pension fund, and anything not aimed at a significant proportion of the population is likely to both raise very little and be mostly avoided by billionaires.
Thankfully there’s been a recent Western programme to put thousands of small communications satellites in orbit, which would be all that impossible for an adversary to take out. The somewhat hot-headed CEO of the company involved, has also been put firmly in his place when it comes to military use of the technology.
Yet Russia is now using Starlink in its petty war of aggression, and MuskyBaby has said nothing that I've heard. When Ukraine tried to use Starlink, it was, according to Musk, unacceptable. Until he was put in his place.
The Scottish Nationalists have found the latest controversy that they want to concentrate on. Apparently those students of Scottish history have discovered that the cafe in Edinburgh Castle is called the Redcoat Cafe. In fact it has been called that since it opened nearly 30 years ago.
Clearly changing this calumny is now a priority for the Scottish Government.
I feel somewhat ambivalent. When they are wasting time on this nonsense at least they are not screwing up something more important.
We Scots are thinking of opening a cafe in London called “You got fucked at Bannockburn”. I assume you will all be in favour.
"In the Year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland - starving and outnumbered - charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets; they fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom."
I remember that line, and every time I hear it I shout out "what does a warrior poet fight like?" Are quills involved? Do they take inkwells into battle? Silly line.
Perhaps they recite rhymes:
Roses are red, Violets are blue, I'll cut off your head, And disembowel you...
Roses are redish Violets are bluish If it wasn't for Christmas We'd all be Jewish
Absolutely. Biden has nothing to lose. Change the constitution. Ban the fucking things and let Trump and his idiot followers argue otherwise.
Have there ever been any polls regarding the banning of guns?
Good question. I’d imagine there would be a small majority in favour of retaining them. But, fuck it. Leaders gotta lead. Ban the fucking things Biden and let Trump argue against it.
They just get the SC to rule the ban unconstitutional. Without the support of a supermajority no such ban is possible.
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Unless I’m misreading that I can’t see a survey of the general public that isn’t filtered by party ID.
“64% of Americans support stricter gun control laws, 36% oppose it. 54% of Americans believe that such laws will reduce the number of deaths and killings of citizens with firearms, and 58% believe that the government can take effective action to prevent mass shootings. 36% believe the presence of guns makes public places less safe, 32% believe allowing gun owners to carry their guns in public makes those places safer, and 32% believe it makes no difference. The results had a margin for error of plus or minus 3.7 points.” - CNN poll from 2023
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
It's slowly changing The NRA is quite likely to go bust, for example.
Cold-war-style fearmongering to make it easier for 3 Republicans to vote for the discharge petition, good to see they've still got it.
Unlikely to happen.
Last year, 100% of House Republicans rejected a discharge petition to tackle the debt limit—when a global economic meltdown was at stake. Rep Fitzpatrick refused to sign one for *his own* gun bill. This is simply not a tool Rs are willing to use. Don’t expect it for Ukraine aid. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1757948890794344697
They won't even do it for things they *really* want. The attachment to procedures for blocking legislation is extreme.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Finely poised at lunch. ...Mark Wood and Tom Hartley reduced India to 33-3, and it would have been 47-4 had Joe Root caught Rohit Sharma at slip. Instead Rohit and Ravindra Jadeja batted with increasing authority in an unbroken partnership of 60...
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
Intuitive Machines have just launched a lander to the Moon's south pole.
This is interesting for me, because I followed Armadillo Aerospace, a Doom-laden aerospace company developing a lander. They closed shop seven years ago, but the IM lander is based on AA's tech.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
It's being reported on WDR 2 that in return Britain has asked for German troops to help subjugate Scotland in the event of an unauthorised independence referendum.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
It's being reported on WDR 2 that in return Britain has asked for German troops to help subjugate Scotland in the event of an unauthorised independence referendum.
Thankfully there’s been a recent Western programme to put thousands of small communications satellites in orbit, which would be all that impossible for an adversary to take out. The somewhat hot-headed CEO of the company involved, has also been put firmly in his place when it comes to military use of the technology.
Yet Russia is now using Starlink in its petty war of aggression, and MuskyBaby has said nothing that I've heard. When Ukraine tried to use Starlink, it was, according to Musk, unacceptable. Until he was put in his place.
Any evidence for them being used by the Russians? Last I heard they were pretty good at tracking ‘stolen’ units and sending the location to Storm Shadow command.
Starlink tried to portray them as purely for civilian use, then the US military bought up hundreds of them and said clearly that it was in SpaceX’s interest to not interfere in their use.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
It's being reported on WDR 2 that in return Britain has asked for German troops to help subjugate Scotland in the event of an unauthorised independence referendum.
Thankfully there’s been a recent Western programme to put thousands of small communications satellites in orbit, which would be all that impossible for an adversary to take out. The somewhat hot-headed CEO of the company involved, has also been put firmly in his place when it comes to military use of the technology.
Yet Russia is now using Starlink in its petty war of aggression, and MuskyBaby has said nothing that I've heard. When Ukraine tried to use Starlink, it was, according to Musk, unacceptable. Until he was put in his place.
Any evidence for them being used by the Russians? Last I heard they were pretty good at tracking ‘stolen’ units and sending the location to Storm Shadow command.
Starlink tried to portray them as purely for civilian use, then the US military bought up hundreds of them and said clearly that it was in SpaceX’s interest to not interfere in their use.
UK in recession. 0.3% drop in GDP in fourth quarter. 0.1 % growth in all of 2023.
So growth up 0.1% over 2023. Rishi can claim a win, another of the 5 pledges smashed out of the park!
Also, do the maths
We achieved 0.1% growth WHILE IMPORTING 700,000 MIGRANTS (plus illegals, expensively housed)
In other words, everyone got a lot poorer, and still the incoming flood proceeds
We are like a hotel that has gone from a good profitable 4 star to putting five people in every room to just about break even, and so the reputation goes down, we lower prices further to desperately attract anyone, we turn the rooms into dorms, then we become a hostel
As I said yesterday, it doesn’t make a difference the real world if they formally call a recession or not. Because most voters can feel the recession, most voters are living the recession.
Worse is to come. We had the tax rises of the autumn statement. My first mortgage payment with the Liz Truss tax is days away. So many small businesses crumbling under the weight of their COVID debts…
Not just a one-off hit. As long as we remain out of Europe we will be economically incapacitated. It really is time the Tories were held responsible for this monumental act of self harm.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
It's being reported on WDR 2 that in return Britain has asked for German troops to help subjugate Scotland in the event of an unauthorised independence referendum.
I didn't realise that HYUFD had so much influence!
UK in recession. 0.3% drop in GDP in fourth quarter. 0.1 % growth in all of 2023.
So growth up 0.1% over 2023. Rishi can claim a win, another of the 5 pledges smashed out of the park!
Also, do the maths
We achieved 0.1% growth WHILE IMPORTING 700,000 MIGRANTS (plus illegals, expensively housed)
In other words, everyone got a lot poorer, and still the incoming flood proceeds
We are like a hotel that has gone from a good profitable 4 star to putting five people in every room to just about break even, and so the reputation goes down, we lower prices further to desperately attract anyone, we turn the rooms into dorms, then we become a hostel
**** me, that was some leap!
Some might argue that a modest growth over 2023 would have been much improved by the industry of those hitherto un-arrived foreign workers to boost our output and grow our economy.
Bank of England will no doubt want to see a depression befor interest rates fall
With the economy in a technical recession and inflation set to fall sub 2% in the next few months no doubt there will be a lot of pressure on the Bank to cut rates quickly. However, that would be a mistake, for three reasons. First, the fall in inflation is driven by falling energy prices and to a lesser extent disinflation in other goods categories. Services and wage inflation by contrast are far too high and look quite sticky, suggesting that inflation is not yet on track to hit 2% sustainably. Second, what matters is not the level of growth but growth relative to the supply capacity of the economy. The extremely tight labour market (3.8% unemployment) suggests that the supply side is weak, which means the Bank can't afford to boost demand without adding to inflation. Finally, the Bank needs to be forward looking, and the PMI surveys suggest the growth outlook is already set to improve. Cutting rates too fast risks a second peak in inflation and further rate hikes in the future to bring it back down. Better to remain patient for now.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent ..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Likesay, what do we get in return?
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
It's being reported on WDR 2 that in return Britain has asked for German troops to help subjugate Scotland in the event of an unauthorised independence referendum.
I didn't realise that HYUFD had so much influence!
Sensible chap HYUFD, I've always said so. The UK government is worried British troops might not want to fire on people in Scotland, and of course they can't ask the French for help. Germany is a natural choice. Also Britain wants to discourage Germany from getting nukes (worried Germany will replace UK in Security Council), so happy to offer nuclear umbrella.
Bank of England will no doubt want to see a depression befor interest rates fall
With the economy in a technical recession and inflation set to fall sub 2% in the next few months no doubt there will be a lot of pressure on the Bank to cut rates quickly. However, that would be a mistake, for three reasons. First, the fall in inflation is driven by falling energy prices and to a lesser extent disinflation in other goods categories. Services and wage inflation by contrast are far too high and look quite sticky, suggesting that inflation is not yet on track to hit 2% sustainably. Second, what matters is not the level of growth but growth relative to the supply capacity of the economy. The extremely tight labour market (3.8% unemployment) suggests that the supply side is weak, which means the Bank can't afford to boost demand without adding to inflation. Finally, the Bank needs to be forward looking, and the PMI surveys suggest the growth outlook is already set to improve. Cutting rates too fast risks a second peak in inflation and further rate hikes in the future to bring it back down. Better to remain patient for now.
Not my field of economics so can't contribute on what's best for the country as a whole, but the inequality of the impact of high interest rates is pretty stark. I'd argue that's why they haven't been particularly effective for inflation - people with debt/mortgages/rents didn't have much discretionary spending to cut in the first place, and the owner-occupier class saved so much during COVID that high interest rates are even better news than normal.
TL;DR: it's not much to worry about; not a space EMP; not a FOBS. It's more Republicans weaponising intelligence against Ukraine.
(*) Good, because I agree with it.
That’s a Superbad take. The statement was issued by Mike Turner, who is one of the House Republicans most vocal about SUPPORTING Ukraine with further military funding. Meanwhile MAGA types likes Marjorie Taylor Greene have responded with word salads about the Mexican border and Biden being senile.
TL;DR: it's not much to worry about; not a space EMP; not a FOBS. It's more Republicans weaponising intelligence against Ukraine.
(*) Good, because I agree with it.
That’s a Superbad take. The statement was issued by Mike Turner, who is one of the House Republicans most vocal about SUPPORTING Ukraine with further military funding. Meanwhile MAGA types likes Marjorie Taylor Greene have responded with word salads about the Mexican border and Biden being senile.
It's a very good take; and certainly better than the 'ohmygodwe'reallgoingtodie' idiots make out. Also, why do *you* think Turner's doing this?
Isn't the problem approximately this: Virtually everyone in the USA has a gun or ten, plus enough ammo to start a small war. There is no register of guns, and thus who has got what is pretty much unknown. If you banned guns tomorrow, some would get handed in, and plenty wouldn't. There would be a strong inverse relationship between those who hand in their guns and those whom you would most like to disarm. Therefore, banning guns probably actually causes some kinds of gun crime to increase - e.g. undertaking armed robbery is much less risky if you are sure the target is unarmed.
It's not clear that turning the USA from a place where everyone is armed to the teeth into a place where only the criminals and the right wing nutjobs are armed is actually much of an improvement.
Note - I'm not against gun control; I wouldn't want a US style free for all here; I'm just not convinced there is a workable way to change the status quo in the US, given where they are now. In some ways it's rather like the problems we have with teenagers stabbing each other with carving knives; it's basically impossible to prevent teenagers from accessing carving knives, the best we can do is make carrying one without a valid reason an offence and do a lot of stop and search type activity in problem areas; and even then a kid stabs another every week or so.
Not correct in one respect - only a minority of Usonians own guns. On a quick lookup, from a Gallup poll several years ago it is about a third:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household. Adults living in gun households include those with a gun in their home or anywhere on their property.
Isn't the problem approximately this: Virtually everyone in the USA has a gun or ten, plus enough ammo to start a small war. There is no register of guns, and thus who has got what is pretty much unknown. If you banned guns tomorrow, some would get handed in, and plenty wouldn't. There would be a strong inverse relationship between those who hand in their guns and those whom you would most like to disarm. Therefore, banning guns probably actually causes some kinds of gun crime to increase - e.g. undertaking armed robbery is much less risky if you are sure the target is unarmed.
It's not clear that turning the USA from a place where everyone is armed to the teeth into a place where only the criminals and the right wing nutjobs are armed is actually much of an improvement.
Note - I'm not against gun control; I wouldn't want a US style free for all here; I'm just not convinced there is a workable way to change the status quo in the US, given where they are now. In some ways it's rather like the problems we have with teenagers stabbing each other with carving knives; it's basically impossible to prevent teenagers from accessing carving knives, the best we can do is make carrying one without a valid reason an offence and do a lot of stop and search type activity in problem areas; and even then a kid stabs another every week or so.
Not correct in one respect - only a minority of Usonians own guns. On a quick lookup, from a Gallup poll several years ago it is about a third:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household. Adults living in gun households include those with a gun in their home or anywhere on their property.
PS For one demographic factor, I'd perhaps point to extensive urbanisation in the USA being around a century behind the UK. UK was 80%+ urbanised by 1890; in the USA it did not reach that number until post-2000.
And country people - as in the UK - have a greater familiarity with guns in the normal patterns of life. Urbanisation in certain European countries eg France is also comparatively later.
That speaks somewhat to attempts to reduce guns in society, as background.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
Changing the constitution requires 2/3rd majorities in both House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
Of course no one was punching as literally above their status as the former Shpeaker, Big Bad John.
Channelling vaping Zebedee - time for bed.
"Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
Azhar Ali has come back fighting with a similar message to George Galloway:
"Sacked by Starmer for speaking on Palestine. It's time to teach Starmer a lesson in Rochdale. Vote Azhar Ali""
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1757905765375844851
The problem is that the gun rights lobby is large and well organised. Politicians who are perceived as anti-gun find their opponents offered massive financial support.
Even for a rational overhaul of US firearms law.
The tape is more than 30s long, so it can't be an advert.
https://youtu.be/0vcB7uCqdFk
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'll cut off your head,
And disembowel you...
Virtually everyone in the USA has a gun or ten, plus enough ammo to start a small war.
There is no register of guns, and thus who has got what is pretty much unknown.
If you banned guns tomorrow, some would get handed in, and plenty wouldn't.
There would be a strong inverse relationship between those who hand in their guns and those whom you would most like to disarm.
Therefore, banning guns probably actually causes some kinds of gun crime to increase - e.g. undertaking armed robbery is much less risky if you are sure the target is unarmed.
It's not clear that turning the USA from a place where everyone is armed to the teeth into a place where only the criminals and the right wing nutjobs are armed is actually much of an improvement.
Note - I'm not against gun control; I wouldn't want a US style free for all here; I'm just not convinced there is a workable way to change the status quo in the US, given where they are now. In some ways it's rather like the problems we have with teenagers stabbing each other with carving knives; it's basically impossible to prevent teenagers from accessing carving knives, the best we can do is make carrying one without a valid reason an offence and do a lot of stop and search type activity in problem areas; and even then a kid stabs another every week or so.
Or best of all; make gun manufacturers legally liable the same as all other products, for death and injury caused by misuse.
Semi automatic weapons are where the real issues are.
Going after the gun manufacturers runs into legal problems. Mainly to do with definitions of proper use, IIRC.
But even some of those (registration) struggle to get a majority. There is simply not the appetite in the US for a ban.
Joe Biden urged to declassify intelligence on the operation, which could be used to target Western satellites
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/14/russia-is-preparing-to-launch-nuclear-weapon-into-space/ (£££)
https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-virginia-store-2019-8?op=1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68288727
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jrZ933P-Iw
But will he, hell?
Thankfully there’s been a recent Western programme to put thousands of small communications satellites in orbit, which would be all that impossible for an adversary to take out. The somewhat hot-headed CEO of the company involved, has also been put firmly in his place when it comes to military use of the technology.
The vast majority of people have little ‘weath’ bar the roof over their head and their pension fund, and anything not aimed at a significant proportion of the population is likely to both raise very little and be mostly avoided by billionaires.
Violets are bluish
If it wasn't for Christmas
We'd all be Jewish
Without the support of a supermajority no such ban is possible.
The NRA is quite likely to go bust, for example.
Last year, 100% of House Republicans rejected a discharge petition to tackle the debt limit—when a global economic meltdown was at stake. Rep Fitzpatrick refused to sign one for *his own* gun bill. This is simply not a tool Rs are willing to use. Don’t expect it for Ukraine aid.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1757948890794344697
They won't even do it for things they *really* want. The attachment to procedures for blocking legislation is extreme.
Express: Labour meltdown as lead over Tories plummets by 'significant drop' in new poll nightmare
Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent
..In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”..
Fall in rank below Germany has been attributed to a weak yen and country’s ageing, shrinking population
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/japan-recession-economy-falls-behind-germany-worlds-largest
...Mark Wood and Tom Hartley reduced India to 33-3, and it would have been 47-4 had Joe Root caught Rohit Sharma at slip. Instead Rohit and Ravindra Jadeja batted with increasing authority in an unbroken partnership of 60...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOdTfkJojK4
TL;DR: it's not much to worry about; not a space EMP; not a FOBS. It's more Republicans weaponising intelligence against Ukraine.
(*) Good, because I agree with it.
A nice sunny chunk of Europe?
Germans basically own Majorca. Let's ask for that, plus Malta back, plus Trieste and its hinterland
This is interesting for me, because I followed Armadillo Aerospace, a Doom-laden aerospace company developing a lander. They closed shop seven years ago, but the IM lander is based on AA's tech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-68286237
Starlink tried to portray them as purely for civilian use, then the US military bought up hundreds of them and said clearly that it was in SpaceX’s interest to not interfere in their use.
0.3% drop in GDP in fourth quarter.
0.1 % growth in all of 2023.
You get no tanks from a German.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russian-forces-obtaining-musks-starlink-via-third-countries-2024-02-12/
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-buying-musks-starlink-systems-in-arab-countries-ukraine-says-a0185f55
etc.
We achieved 0.1% growth WHILE IMPORTING 700,000 MIGRANTS (plus illegals, expensively housed)
In other words, everyone got a lot poorer, and still the incoming flood proceeds
We are like a hotel that has gone from a good profitable 4 star to putting five people in every room to just about break even, and so the reputation goes down, we lower prices further to desperately attract anyone, we turn the rooms into dorms, then we become a hostel
Worse is to come. We had the tax rises of the autumn statement. My first mortgage payment with the Liz Truss tax is days away. So many small businesses crumbling under the weight of their COVID debts…
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n04/james-meek/two-armies-in-one
Leon will like it because it agrees with him. The Banderite shills won't like it because it agrees with Leon.
Basically, the economy is about the same size as it was 6 months ago.
Let's see some error bars on these figures.
Not that I object to having something to blame the government for.
Some might argue that a modest growth over 2023 would have been much improved by the industry of those hitherto un-arrived foreign workers to boost our output and grow our economy.
So, in 3...2...1...
The funny thing about that is your favoured side are the fascists, waging a war of imperialist expansion against a smaller nation.
NEW THREAD
And now we have a recession.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household. Adults living in gun households include those with a gun in their home or anywhere on their property.
Gallup has tracked both metrics of gun ownership annually since 2007, showing no clear increase or decrease in gun ownership over that time.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
Even eg Texas is in line.
It's a vociferous minority.
For one demographic factor, I'd perhaps point to extensive urbanisation in the USA being around a century behind the UK. UK was 80%+ urbanised by 1890; in the USA it did not reach that number until post-2000.
And country people - as in the UK - have a greater familiarity with guns in the normal patterns of life. Urbanisation in certain European countries eg France is also comparatively later.
That speaks somewhat to attempts to reduce guns in society, as background.