Former Tory MP Julian Knight is expected to announce he is standing as an independent in the general election - against the official Conservative candidate"
Fly-tippers to get points on driving licence, Tories promise
The Conservatives have unveiled plans to dock points from fly-tippers' driving licenses and evict disruptive tenants from social housing.
Repeat fly-tippers currently face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine, but new plans could also see low-level offenders face driving penalties. Mr Sunak has also promised a new law to evict repeat offenders from social housing after three verified instances of anti-social behaviour - including such as noise disturbances, vandalism, and other forms of harassment.
An interesting aspect of Trump's conviction as a felon is how many of his co-accused in other trials now run to the Prosecutor to cut a deal. Especially in Georgia and noteably the Arizona fake electors, where Trump is currently Unindicted Co-conspiritor #1. That status could easily change before the election.
Baxtered, that puts Labour on 512 seats. Currently trading at 25/1 on Betfair Exchange.
That would be great craic
If not great Government. There would be some absolute moon-howlers elected amongsts Labours ranks. And hundreds of ambitious Minister-wannabes. Discipline would be fun!
Fly-tippers to get points on driving licence, Tories promise
The Conservatives have unveiled plans to dock points from fly-tippers' driving licenses and evict disruptive tenants from social housing.
Repeat fly-tippers currently face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine, but new plans could also see low-level offenders face driving penalties. Mr Sunak has also promised a new law to evict repeat offenders from social housing after three verified instances of anti-social behaviour - including such as noise disturbances, vandalism, and other forms of harassment.
Given that Trump's legal strategy in all cases has been delay delay delay, it's going to be funny watching him trying to expedite the appeal. Although maybe he will actually think that he can make hay with the victim narrative, get elected, and then pardon himself.
"We need to shut down the corrupt court system until we can figure out what the hell is going on."
So is the impressive Corberon on his way to the Foxes? And does that mean the Baggies wind up with some Alan Pardew looky-likey who can take us straight out of the Championship - and into Division One?
Is Coberán that impressive? He's done OK but WBA've been dull over the last 2 seasons.
Baxtered, that puts Labour on 512 seats. Currently trading at 25/1 on Betfair Exchange.
That would be great craic
If not great Government. There would be some absolute moon-howlers elected amongsts Labours ranks. And hundreds of ambitious Minister-wannabes. Discipline would be fun!
Might be worth it to give the Tories the shock they desperately need to mend their ways.
The Conservatives need a Starmer figure to weed out the nutters and bring them back to a sensible place. Sunak's failed to do that, probably more for want of trying than out of disposition. But someone needs to succeed where he has failed. Or, the Tories need to shuffle off for good and someone sensible take their place on the centre right.
Baxtered, that puts Labour on 512 seats. Currently trading at 25/1 on Betfair Exchange.
That would be great craic
If not great Government. There would be some absolute moon-howlers elected amongsts Labours ranks. And hundreds of ambitious Minister-wannabes. Discipline would be fun!
Might be worth it to give the Tories the shock they desperately need to mend their ways.
The Conservatives need a Starmer figure to weed out the nutters and bring them back to a sensible place. Sunak's failed to do that, probably more for want of trying than out of disposition. But someone needs to succeed where he has failed. Or, the Tories need to shuffle off for good and someone sensible take their place on the centre right.
Though I don't think it would be more popular than a centrist position, I do have some sympathy for the view that if they were consistent in taking a more rightward path that would also be a means to recover post the election, if they were also more competent about things. So really the key is how long their civil war will last.
Baxtered, that puts Labour on 512 seats. Currently trading at 25/1 on Betfair Exchange.
That would be great craic
If not great Government. There would be some absolute moon-howlers elected amongsts Labours ranks. And hundreds of ambitious Minister-wannabes. Discipline would be fun!
Might be worth it to give the Tories the shock they desperately need to mend their ways.
The Conservatives need a Starmer figure to weed out the nutters and bring them back to a sensible place. Sunak's failed to do that, probably more for want of trying than out of disposition. But someone needs to succeed where he has failed. Or, the Tories need to shuffle off for good and someone sensible take their place on the centre right.
Yup. It amuses me the few remaining Tory loyalists who keep trying to persuade me to change my vote. Of course I know Labour will be just as bad. But it's absolutely essential for the good of the centre-right that the current Conservative party is kicked in the face HARD. Even if Labour will actually be worse. We just cannot allow this sort of mismanagement from the party that's supposed to be the competent one.
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
The more you look at this conviction the worse it gets. A politically motivated lawyer gunning explicitly for an elected president?
My American friends, it’s time to pluck the musket from the thatch, and face the Redcoats. It’s time to Fight
You haven't looked at it more. I've followed this trial every day - the defense has some points they scored (some inconsistencies, the difficulties tying Trump directly to some actions), they have some points they could raise on appeal (the question of the second crime which had to be undertaken to make it a felony for example), but the case was not reliant on Cohen (though he was significant). And as for the office being politically motivated, well, unfortuantely that is the american legal system - it sucks, but that is their way.
As I mentioned, the most damning testimony came from people who like Trump. People who said they admire him. People who worked for him, and people who still work for him. They were not out to get him, they were compelled to testify and tell the truth.
It's fine to question any verdict, but there's a lot more to this case than Cohen, if that is what you are reading you are reading lie.
I haven’t looked at ANY of it in detail. So I’m approaching if like the average American (also, FWIW, I despise Trump and think he’s a disaster for the West at THE moment when we need hard right American leadership)
What I casually see is an unsavoury politically motivated New York attorney whose whole shtick is “getting trump” for which reason she was elected. It’s a great advert for not electing legal figures. It’s a get-out for Trump. And it’s possibly a casus belli for US Civil War
Nighty night
The NY AG didn't convict him. A jury of 12 regular Americans did so. Unanimously. On 33 counts.
I would take issue with "regular". The jurors were all from New York County (Manhattan), which has the highest per capita income of any county in the US and which voted 86% Democrat. So really pretty atypical actually.
People that live in big cities are regular people. Yes, even if they vote Democratic.
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
Difference is Trump encouraged people TO fight. And people died. And now he can rot in hell.
Former Tory MP Julian Knight is expected to announce he is standing as an independent in the general election - against the official Conservative candidate"
(When it says former MP, it means former since yesterday, for clarification).
He's doing it for the payment of course, but Knight is a real piece of shit - he has an NDA with his (disabled) former office manager because he deliberately moved to an office with no lift access to justify sacking her, and rightfully got sued for it.
(It took three trials, but prosecutors did eventually win a conviction against Edwards. In one of the earlier trials, Edwards truly had a jury of his peers: They stole towels from the hotel they were staying in.)
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
Difference is Trump encouraged people TO fight. And people died. And now he can rot in hell.
Debs had previously led a violent rail strike in which people were killed.
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
Difference is Trump encouraged people TO fight. And people died. And now he can rot in hell.
Debs had previously led a violent rail strike in which people were killed.
He'd led a rail strike in which strikers were killed.
I mean he's not to my taste politically at all, there was a lot of vandalism and so on. But it was dealt with in a very heavy handed way, and his supporters were not, in fact, doing the killing - they were the ones being killed.
Patrick Maguire in the Times pinning the 'purge' on the Labour staffers rather than on Starmer directly:
When I speak to survivors of this strange period in Labour history — the liminal space between Corbynism and whatever you want to call this brutal, no-compromises iteration of Starmerism — almost all agree that Starmer was sincere when he spoke of his desire to draw a line under years of debilitating factionalism and mutual enmity across Labour’s ideological divide. He had about as much time for Blairite ultras as he did the more bombastic Corbynites in the shadow cabinet, which is to say not very much.
But he also chose to delegate in its entirety the job of reforming the party bureaucracy to committed, single-minded opponents of the left: most notably Morgan McSweeney, then his chief of staff and now the party’s campaign director, and Matt Pound, who cut his teeth working for the old right campaign group Labour First. From day one they have had their leader’s implicit trust and he has never questioned their methods, however controversial, on the biggest calls.
And so Starmer’s Labour Party has changed. Operators such as these did not change its leadership rules to freeze out the left, ostracise Corbyn and micromanage parliamentary selections for nothing. Starmer’s target voters are not using this week’s focus groups to complain that Corbynites have been vetoed out of existence or that Abbott says she has been barred from standing. The thinking is that 72 or 96 hours of hue and cry over fixes and stitch-ups in the first of the six weeks before polling day is better, if not more productive, than any other possible disruption or wobble.
Patrick Maguire in the Times pinning the 'purge' on the Labour staffers rather than on Starmer directly:
When I speak to survivors of this strange period in Labour history — the liminal space between Corbynism and whatever you want to call this brutal, no-compromises iteration of Starmerism — almost all agree that Starmer was sincere when he spoke of his desire to draw a line under years of debilitating factionalism and mutual enmity across Labour’s ideological divide. He had about as much time for Blairite ultras as he did the more bombastic Corbynites in the shadow cabinet, which is to say not very much.
But he also chose to delegate in its entirety the job of reforming the party bureaucracy to committed, single-minded opponents of the left: most notably Morgan McSweeney, then his chief of staff and now the party’s campaign director, and Matt Pound, who cut his teeth working for the old right campaign group Labour First. From day one they have had their leader’s implicit trust and he has never questioned their methods, however controversial, on the biggest calls.
And so Starmer’s Labour Party has changed. Operators such as these did not change its leadership rules to freeze out the left, ostracise Corbyn and micromanage parliamentary selections for nothing. Starmer’s target voters are not using this week’s focus groups to complain that Corbynites have been vetoed out of existence or that Abbott says she has been barred from standing. The thinking is that 72 or 96 hours of hue and cry over fixes and stitch-ups in the first of the six weeks before polling day is better, if not more productive, than any other possible disruption or wobble.
This is wearying. I know that's bullshit. You know that's bullshit. Maguire knows it's bullshit. But he says it to make Starmer look good and keep access, and I'm supposed to nod and go "yeah, whatevs". I find myself increasingly unwilling to.
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
Difference is Trump encouraged people TO fight. And people died. And now he can rot in hell.
Debs had previously led a violent rail strike in which people were killed.
I hope that this is the end of Donald Trump. I fear it isn't but I'm more hopeful now that Americans won't vote him into office. I do wonder whether he'll now have to withdraw on some technicality and someone else runs instead? I think Nikki Haley would wipe the floor with Biden, a proper landslide victory.
I hope that this is the end of Donald Trump. I fear it isn't but I'm more hopeful now that Americans won't vote him into office. I do wonder whether he'll now have to withdraw on some technicality and someone else runs instead? I think Nikki Haley would wipe the floor with Biden, a proper landslide victory.
Not sure MAGA would come out for Haley. That's the hole the Republicans are in.
I hope that this is the end of Donald Trump. I fear it isn't but I'm more hopeful now that Americans won't vote him into office. I do wonder whether he'll now have to withdraw on some technicality and someone else runs instead? I think Nikki Haley would wipe the floor with Biden, a proper landslide victory.
Not sure MAGA would come out for Haley. That's the hole the Republicans are in.
Then they get the Dems in perpetuity. If those fools have forgotten how to compromise then they're out of power forever.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I just want to add, that the people who say "Oh, it's the fault of the Democrats that the Republicans claim the election was stolen", well, if they want to be consistent then they should probably remember who started the "Lock Her Up" chants.
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
Difference is Trump encouraged people TO fight. And people died. And now he can rot in hell.
Debs had previously led a violent rail strike in which people were killed.
That was the U.S. army killing strikers - thirty of them. Debs was a notable moderate within the labour movement at the time.
I hope that this is the end of Donald Trump. I fear it isn't but I'm more hopeful now that Americans won't vote him into office. I do wonder whether he'll now have to withdraw on some technicality and someone else runs instead? I think Nikki Haley would wipe the floor with Biden, a proper landslide victory.
Not sure MAGA would come out for Haley. That's the hole the Republicans are in.
Then they get the Dems in perpetuity. If those fools have forgotten how to compromise then they're out of power forever.
Nothing is forever, though it might take the party some time to come to its senses. There's a whole younger generation of would be Trump replacements vying to succeed him.
In any event, I thought it worthwhile to put a couple of £ on Haley at 50/1, though it's probably a value loser.
Socialist Eugene Debs ran his presidential campaign in 1920 from a federal jail in Atlanta. He was serving 10 years for sedition having encouraged people not to fight in World War One. Debs still won nearly a million votes.
Difference is Trump encouraged people TO fight. And people died. And now he can rot in hell.
Debs had previously led a violent rail strike in which people were killed.
That was the U.S. army killing strikers - thirty of them. Debs was a notable moderate within the labour movement at the time.
He didn't actually become a socialist until his (postwar) imprisonment for 'sedition'. Norable socialist admirer Trump will no doubt note that Debs also promised to pardon himself if elected.
Trump’s political operation views the guilty verdict in the New York hush money trial as a small-dollar goldmine — so much so that they are warning other Republicans not to raise money off it and siphon off money that could otherwise go to the Trump campaign.
“Any Republican elected official, candidate or party committee siphoning money from President Trump’s donors are no better than Judge Merchan’s daughter,” said Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita. “We’re keeping a list, we’ll be checking it twice and we aren’t in the spirit of Christmas.”..
Fly-tippers to get points on driving licence, Tories promise
The Conservatives have unveiled plans to dock points from fly-tippers' driving licenses and evict disruptive tenants from social housing.
Repeat fly-tippers currently face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine, but new plans could also see low-level offenders face driving penalties. Mr Sunak has also promised a new law to evict repeat offenders from social housing after three verified instances of anti-social behaviour - including such as noise disturbances, vandalism, and other forms of harassment.
Former Tory MP Julian Knight is expected to announce he is standing as an independent in the general election - against the official Conservative candidate"
(When it says former MP, it means former since yesterday, for clarification).
All Tory MPs should bury their egos, stiffen their lips and bloody well do their duty for the next 5 weeks. No matter what.
If they then want to sail off into the sunset after, then that's up to them, but first you back your bloody team and you do it to the absolute best of your ability.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
Nah. Trump is a shoddy little crime boss. His schtick was that he was so rich, he was above all the grubby sleaziness of other lesser players. The media bought into this, because, you know, he was a media player.
No longer. That conviction, not of misdemeanours but of felony was that his actions to falsify accounts had a bigger, darker purpose. A jury found that darker purpose beyond all reasonable doubt.
Trump's base may come out en masse. But his base has not been increased by his conviction. The pool of those prepared to forgive his failing because, you know, he does great stuff and drains the swamp - that is an ever decreasing number. What they have seen is a guy who blocked damaging stuff to steal an election. This is not something the independents will forgive. And if you think Trump's base is motivated to vote, its nothing to the determination of the Democrats to ensure that Trump never besmirches the office of President of the United States once more.
So he managed to steal an election once. By just 80,000 votes in three swing states. But we then move on to how, after he properly lost an election, his ego and consequent temper tantrum made him pursue all means to overthrow that verdict of the voters. Including inciting his supporters to invade Congress. He doesn't get a pass on that from the voters. I'm as confident of this as I was in his getting convicted, when I flagged his legal woes with pb.com months back.
Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll
Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters
The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.
The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.
This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.
Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.
In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.
Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.
The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.
Even if Trump had been convicted of one of the other charges the cult would still find a way to vote for him . The level of denial amongst his supporters is truly astounding .
Amidst all the drama over yesterday’s verdict another story broke which might have more impact if a video emerges of Trump using the n word .
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
Nah. Trump is a shoddy little crime boss. His schtick was that he was so rich, he was above all the grubby sleaziness of other lesser players. The media bought into this, because, you know, he was a media player.
No longer. That conviction, not of misdemeanours but of felony was that his actions to falsify accounts had a bigger, darker purpose. A jury found that darker purpose beyond all reasonable doubt.
Trump's base may come out en masse. But his base has not been increased by his conviction. The pool of those prepared to forgive his failing because, you know, he does great stuff and drains the swamp - that is an ever decreasing number. What they have seen is a guy who blocked damaging stuff to steal an election. This is not something the independents will forgive. And if you think Trump's base is motivated to vote, its nothing to the determination of the Democrats to ensure that Trump never besmirches the office of President of the United States once more.
So he managed to steal an election once. By just 80,000 votes in three swing states. But we then move on to how, after he properly lost an election, his ego and consequent temper tantrum made him pursue all means to overthrow that verdict of the voters. Including inciting his supporters to invade Congress. He doesn't get a pass on that from the voters. I'm as confident of this as I was in his getting convicted, when I flagged his legal woes with pb.com months back.
I think you're more likely right than is Robert, but I don't think it as certain as you believe it to be.
I think of all the mad and bad things that Trump has already done, and already said, and I'm surprised that there are so many people who think that this will be the thing that convinces voters not to back Trump.
My expectation is that people who have already chosen to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, will not find it that difficult to rationalise away this conviction. It will be the court that was wrong, not Trump.
This sort of rationalisation is very common, where people adjust their view of an event to fit their prior beliefs.
Fly-tippers to get points on driving licence, Tories promise
The Conservatives have unveiled plans to dock points from fly-tippers' driving licenses and evict disruptive tenants from social housing.
Repeat fly-tippers currently face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine, but new plans could also see low-level offenders face driving penalties. Mr Sunak has also promised a new law to evict repeat offenders from social housing after three verified instances of anti-social behaviour - including such as noise disturbances, vandalism, and other forms of harassment.
That's the only potentially decent one so far, but it will only have value with effective enforcement - which means reversing the iirc 50% cut in traffic police officers since 2000, and where I am the removal of many PCSOs during the Cameron Cuts period.
It will also require action to be taken on cloned plates, which is just another consequence of Transport Minister arse-sitting.
I think of all the mad and bad things that Trump has already done, and already said, and I'm surprised that there are so many people who think that this will be the thing that convinces voters not to back Trump.
My expectation is that people who have already chosen to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, will not find it that difficult to rationalise away this conviction. It will be the court that was wrong, not Trump.
This sort of rationalisation is very common, where people adjust their view of an event to fit their prior beliefs.
Yes, but there are still enough undecideds to swing it either way.
I think of all the mad and bad things that Trump has already done, and already said, and I'm surprised that there are so many people who think that this will be the thing that convinces voters not to back Trump.
My expectation is that people who have already chosen to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, will not find it that difficult to rationalise away this conviction. It will be the court that was wrong, not Trump.
This sort of rationalisation is very common, where people adjust their view of an event to fit their prior beliefs.
Yes, but there are still enough undecideds to swing it either way.
We are talking about voters who are still prepared to consider Trump as a possible voting option despite everything that has already happened in the prior nine years. I simply don't see why this should move the dial compared to so much else that has gone before.
Former Tory MP Julian Knight is expected to announce he is standing as an independent in the general election - against the official Conservative candidate"
(When it says former MP, it means former since yesterday, for clarification).
He's doing it for the payment of course, but Knight is a real piece of shit - he has an NDA with his (disabled) former office manager because he deliberately moved to an office with no lift access to justify sacking her, and rightfully got sued for it.
This isn't right. MPs getting more if they run for re-election than just stand down was a temporary situation and the rules now pay all MPs leaving Parliament the same amount. The only exceptions are MPs who stand down before an election period, but Julian Knight qualifies either way.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
My main disagreement is around Ukraine: I don't think Trump has the power to make them cede half the country, so long as the UK and EU continue to step up military support.
Interesting. Whilst this would be fatal in the UK I'm not sure it will be in the US. Not many of us have a great record in US politics.
My sense is he's still nominated and runs but now struggles to win and definitely loses the popular vote, so have cashed out of that bet.
I have also put a saver on Trump junior and Haley at long odds for nominee - just in case.
Berlusconi is often a useful precedent for how countries deal with populist political rogues and he managed to shrug off multiple convictions through his career.
Trump shows how far utter unalloyed confidence and narcissistic charisma can take a politician where others would have long ago slumped into obscurity and disgrace.
If Trump gets sent to prison and can't attend the GOP convention, surely Haley will make a move?
Stop imagining he’ll get sent to prison. A prison sentence isn’t that likely for these offences and there would be appeals for ages even if he was given a prison sentence.
Is it automatic in the state of New York that someone appealing a sentence doesn't get sent to the slammer?
There were appeals in the Weinstein case but he was sent to jail after his conviction (albeit the charges were much more serious, obviously)
Presumably it depends on what you’ve been convicted of, are you a danger to the public, etc. Trump is not an immediate danger to the public.
Arguably!
Surely in a political witch-hunt they are not following the law. They will do anything to stop him.
But this isn’t a political witch-hunt and they are following the law. But thanks for playing.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I think of all the mad and bad things that Trump has already done, and already said, and I'm surprised that there are so many people who think that this will be the thing that convinces voters not to back Trump.
My expectation is that people who have already chosen to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, will not find it that difficult to rationalise away this conviction. It will be the court that was wrong, not Trump.
This sort of rationalisation is very common, where people adjust their view of an event to fit their prior beliefs.
Yes, but there are still enough undecideds to swing it either way.
Differential turnout is going to be more unpredictable than which way undecideds are likely to break.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
The logic there doesn’t work. The economic disruption would’ve happened even if the West had given Ukraine more support. The inflationary shock was unavoidable.
Fly-tippers to get points on driving licence, Tories promise
The Conservatives have unveiled plans to dock points from fly-tippers' driving licenses and evict disruptive tenants from social housing.
Repeat fly-tippers currently face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine, but new plans could also see low-level offenders face driving penalties. Mr Sunak has also promised a new law to evict repeat offenders from social housing after three verified instances of anti-social behaviour - including such as noise disturbances, vandalism, and other forms of harassment.
That's the only potentially decent one so far, but it will only have value with effective enforcement - which means reversing the iirc 50% cut in traffic police officers since 2000, and where I am the removal of many PCSOs during the Cameron Cuts period.
It will also require action to be taken on cloned plates, which is just another consequence of Transport Minister arse-sitting.
Eliminating charges at council tips or recycling centres would be a more effective way to fight fly-tipping.
Will the Trump conviction have any impact on UK politics? I wonder whether it might harm Farage, and thus Reform UK, and thus help the Tories?
If anything, the opposite. Reform voters are wildly out of line with all other voters - eg the polling on a Trump election victory has them 3x further away from the Tories than the Tories are from Labour. They don't operate in the same terms of reference as everyone else.
That's why courting Reform voters is so dangerous for the Tories.
Interesting straw, was taken as second in a multi member ward in '22. A small hint that Labour's ongoing Birmingham woes might hold them back there? This was in Erdington, but im tempted to have a very little nibble on Con holding Northfield, currently 7/1
Interesting. Whilst this would be fatal in the UK I'm not sure it will be in the US. Not many of us have a great record in US politics.
My sense is he's still nominated and runs but now struggles to win and definitely loses the popular vote, so have cashed out of that bet.
I have also put a saver on Trump junior and Haley at long odds for nominee - just in case.
Berlusconi is often a useful precedent for how countries deal with populist political rogues and he managed to shrug off multiple convictions through his career.
Trump shows how far utter unalloyed confidence and narcissistic charisma can take a politician where others would have long ago slumped into obscurity and disgrace.
That's Italy.
This is the US. So we can't project wishful thinking.
Former Tory MP Julian Knight is expected to announce he is standing as an independent in the general election - against the official Conservative candidate"
(When it says former MP, it means former since yesterday, for clarification).
All Tory MPs should bury their egos, stiffen their lips and bloody well do their duty for the next 5 weeks. No matter what.
If they then want to sail off into the sunset after, then that's up to them, but first you back your bloody team and you do it to the absolute best of your ability.
He’s a former Tory MP because he lost the whip in 2022 but remind in the House of Commons - it looks like he’s after his lost seat money
This has intrigued me. My first (and I think wrong) guess were that they were to anchor tall inflatables (slides and the like) against the wind. But the ladders are, in turn, only anchored in one direction.
Which indicates that they might be cable tows for wakeboarding, whatever that means! The fact the ladders are only anchored in one direction points towards that, I think.
I think of all the mad and bad things that Trump has already done, and already said, and I'm surprised that there are so many people who think that this will be the thing that convinces voters not to back Trump.
My expectation is that people who have already chosen to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, will not find it that difficult to rationalise away this conviction. It will be the court that was wrong, not Trump.
This sort of rationalisation is very common, where people adjust their view of an event to fit their prior beliefs.
Yes, but there are still enough undecideds to swing it either way.
We are talking about voters who are still prepared to consider Trump as a possible voting option despite everything that has already happened in the prior nine years. I simply don't see why this should move the dial compared to so much else that has gone before.
Me neither. Everybody knew that he paid off Stormy Daniels. Even his Evangelical base was largely OK with him after knowing. So why would the fact that the law has now decided that he committed 34 crimes by so doing change anything? If it was a new conviction for a new (serious) crime it would be different.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
The logic there doesn’t work. The economic disruption would’ve happened even if the West had given Ukraine more support. The inflationary shock was unavoidable.
It just depends. If the war in Ukraine was 'won' 2 years ago with proper military support then why would it inevitably lead to economic disruption? Also if the west stuck with its original plan of abandoning Ukraine then surely there would not have been this economic disruption?
I think the real problem is that there are probably limits connected to geopolitical realities as to how much support the west can actually give Ukraine.
I don't see the forthcoming flawed 'Trump deal' as being an inevitable disaster, given where we are.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
I think the real problem is that there are probably limits connected to geopolitical realities as to how much support the west can actually give Ukraine.
Can you give a bit more detail about what you mean by this?
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
The energy shock from Ukraine was inevitable once Ukrainians fought back.
Ultimately, world gas supply fell because a large chunk of Russian gas export capacity was taken from the market. This happened because there are essentially only two routes out of Russia for natural gas: the pipeline that went through Ukraine itself and Nord Stream. The first was severed by the war, and the second by Ukraine in response to the war.
Now, it's possible that a quick Russian win would have forced the Ukrainian pipeline open. But it's equally likely that you would have seen sabotage. (See the numerous attacks on oil and gas pipelines in Nigeria to understand how easy it is for insurgents to damage energy infrastructure.)
The fault lies in one place, and one place alone, Moscow. They chose to invade Ukraine, and they miscalculated the response.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I really hope you feel better quickly @TSE Take it easy, if you can xx
I know Julian Knights’ family and he’s a good person. The kind the tories will need for rebuilding into the centre. The loyalty at all costs isn’t the way forward for them. Defending the indefensible isn’t strength. It’s weakness of character.
Two good polls for Labour out this morning showing 24% and 25% leads (Techne and YouGov).
I doubt I will bother watching the tv debates which will make no discernible difference. The campaign is very dull because we the public made up our minds ages ago. Labour will win a landslide.
I’m off to see the Judy Chicago exhibition at The Serpentine galleries, followed by Elton John/David Furnish at the V&A. Will probably pop in to the neo-colonialism one too.
Also saw the wonderful Beryl Cook and Tom of Finland exhibition at Studio Voltaire, a very cute gallery in Clapham, staffed by the loveliest people.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
I think there is something in this analysis - the hope that the regime in Russia would collapse. But it has actually been demonstrated over and over again to be resilient, and what seems to be happening now is that it is getting stronger as a direct consequence of the war.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
It would.
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
This has intrigued me. My first (and I think wrong) guess were that they were to anchor tall inflatables (slides and the like) against the wind. But the ladders are, in turn, only anchored in one direction.
Which indicates that they might be cable tows for wakeboarding, whatever that means! The fact the ladders are only anchored in one direction points towards that, I think.
I'm assuming cable towed wakeboarding is to wakeboarding behind a boat what cable towed gliders are to aircraft towed gliders.
There is cable towed water skiing at Holme Pierrepont. I had a mate who went who did not realise that you had to swing wide at corners, because it turned at right angles. So his towline exited stage-left and he continued in a straight line.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
It would.
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.
Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens. (Probably not the herpes, though.)
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
It would.
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
Yes, you're right about the dynamic right at the start (though I don't think either the US, which warned Ukraine of the invasion before it commenced, or the UK were quite so dismissive of their chances).
We could still, though, have made the decision two years ago to supply tanks, artillery, air defence and fighter aircraft in the quantities we've only recently committed to. And they'd have arrived last year, rather than later this year.
This has intrigued me. My first (and I think wrong) guess were that they were to anchor tall inflatables (slides and the like) against the wind. But the ladders are, in turn, only anchored in one direction.
Which indicates that they might be cable tows for wakeboarding, whatever that means! The fact the ladders are only anchored in one direction points towards that, I think.
I'm assuming cable towed wakeboarding is to wakeboarding behind a boat what cable towed gliders are to aircraft towed gliders.
There is cable towed water skiing at Holme Pierrepont. I had a mate who went who did not realise that you had to swing wide at corners, because it turned at right angles. So his towline exited stage-left and he continued in a straight line.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.
Or probably not ?
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though. It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
It would.
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.
It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.
What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.
This has intrigued me. My first (and I think wrong) guess were that they were to anchor tall inflatables (slides and the like) against the wind. But the ladders are, in turn, only anchored in one direction.
Which indicates that they might be cable tows for wakeboarding, whatever that means! The fact the ladders are only anchored in one direction points towards that, I think.
I'm assuming cable towed wakeboarding is to wakeboarding behind a boat what cable towed gliders are to aircraft towed gliders.
There is cable towed water skiing at Holme Pierrepont. I had a mate who went who did not realise that you had to swing wide at corners, because it turned at right angles. So his towline exited stage-left and he continued in a straight line.
Comments
@jonwalker121
Former Tory MP Julian Knight is expected to announce he is standing as an independent in the general election - against the official Conservative candidate"
https://x.com/jonwalker121/status/1796306052411236660
(When it says former MP, it means former since yesterday, for clarification).
https://x.com/damocrat/status/1796179586536882340
The Conservatives need a Starmer figure to weed out the nutters and bring them back to a sensible place. Sunak's failed to do that, probably more for want of trying than out of disposition. But someone needs to succeed where he has failed. Or, the Tories need to shuffle off for good and someone sensible take their place on the centre right.
"Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard.", and
"Vote for the Crook. It's important"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_election
Incidentally, Amazon will still sell you the second: https://www.amazon.com/Crook-Important-Laptop-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B087PC7P5T
(It took three trials, but prosecutors did eventually win a conviction against Edwards. In one of the earlier trials, Edwards truly had a jury of his peers: They stole towels from the hotel they were staying in.)
https://patterico.com/2024/05/30/trump-hush-money-trial-open-thread/#comment-2784701
(So do I.)
I mean he's not to my taste politically at all, there was a lot of vandalism and so on. But it was dealt with in a very heavy handed way, and his supporters were not, in fact, doing the killing - they were the ones being killed.
But he also chose to delegate in its entirety the job of reforming the party bureaucracy to committed, single-minded opponents of the left: most notably Morgan McSweeney, then his chief of staff and now the party’s campaign director, and Matt Pound, who cut his teeth working for the old right campaign group Labour First. From day one they have had their leader’s implicit trust and he has never questioned their methods, however controversial, on the biggest calls.
And so Starmer’s Labour Party has changed. Operators such as these did not change its leadership rules to freeze out the left, ostracise Corbyn and micromanage parliamentary selections for nothing. Starmer’s target voters are not using this week’s focus groups to complain that Corbynites have been vetoed out of existence or that Abbott says she has been barred from standing. The thinking is that 72 or 96 hours of hue and cry over fixes and stitch-ups in the first of the six weeks before polling day is better, if not more productive, than any other possible disruption or wobble.
I just donated $300k to President Trump
The timing isn't a coincidence
🌳 CON: 47.9% (+4.7)
🌹 LAB: 39.3% (-6.1)
🔶 LDM: 4.7% (-0.0)
🌍 GRN: 4.2% (-0.0)
⚙️ WPB: 2.7% (New)
👨🔧 TUSC: 1.2% (-0.5)
No WM (-0.6) as previous.
Conservative HOLD.
Changes w/ 2022.
Overnight local by election result.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.
If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.
In New York, that means taking on Trump.
Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.
And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.
Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.
Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.
Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.
I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.
Debs was a notable moderate within the labour movement at the time.
There's a whole younger generation of would be Trump replacements vying to succeed him.
In any event, I thought it worthwhile to put a couple of £ on Haley at 50/1, though it's probably a value loser.
Norable socialist admirer Trump will no doubt note that Debs also promised to pardon himself if elected.
Trump campaign warns GOP candidates not to fundraise off Trump’s conviction
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/30/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/trumps-warning-00160930
Donald Trump’s campaign is sending a blunt message to down ballot Republicans who are looking to fundraise for themselves off of the ex-president’s conviction: Back off.
Trump’s political operation views the guilty verdict in the New York hush money trial as a small-dollar goldmine — so much so that they are warning other Republicans not to raise money off it and siphon off money that could otherwise go to the Trump campaign.
“Any Republican elected official, candidate or party committee siphoning money from President Trump’s donors are no better than Judge Merchan’s daughter,” said Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita. “We’re keeping a list, we’ll be checking it twice and we aren’t in the spirit of Christmas.”..
https://x.com/elder_plinius/status/1795904025507856596
(If not, you're welcome.)
Labour should steal it.
My sense is he's still nominated and runs but now struggles to win and definitely loses the popular vote, so have cashed out of that bet.
I have also put a saver on Trump junior and Haley at long odds for nominee - just in case.
If they then want to sail off into the sunset after, then that's up to them, but first you back your bloody team and you do it to the absolute best of your ability.
No longer. That conviction, not of misdemeanours but of felony was that his actions to falsify accounts had a bigger, darker purpose. A jury found that darker purpose beyond all reasonable doubt.
Trump's base may come out en masse. But his base has not been increased by his conviction. The pool of those prepared to forgive his failing because, you know, he does great stuff and drains the swamp - that is an ever decreasing number. What they have seen is a guy who blocked damaging stuff to steal an election. This is not something the independents will forgive. And if you think Trump's base is motivated to vote, its nothing to the determination of the Democrats to ensure that Trump never besmirches the office of President of the United States once more.
So he managed to steal an election once. By just 80,000 votes in three swing states. But we then move on to how, after he properly lost an election, his ego and consequent temper tantrum made him pursue all means to overthrow that verdict of the voters. Including inciting his supporters to invade Congress. He doesn't get a pass on that from the voters. I'm as confident of this as I was in his getting convicted, when I flagged his legal woes with pb.com months back.
YouGov consistently overcook turnout, Labour and Reform, and undercook the Tories and the LDs. They need to review their panel.
Look how far out they were in the mayoral and locals.
Amidst all the drama over yesterday’s verdict another story broke which might have more impact if a video emerges of Trump using the n word .
My expectation is that people who have already chosen to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, will not find it that difficult to rationalise away this conviction. It will be the court that was wrong, not Trump.
This sort of rationalisation is very common, where people adjust their view of an event to fit their prior beliefs.
It will also require action to be taken on cloned plates, which is just another consequence of Transport Minister arse-sitting.
They look to be 8-10m high. I don't believe "lifeguards" because they are in the water and it is only 1m deep.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8283128,-0.1989255,3a,15y,216.47h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDNtZUwUSTZVTgA-9mDep6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66612463
Trump shows how far utter unalloyed confidence and narcissistic charisma can take a politician where others would have long ago slumped into obscurity and disgrace.
Give him a sugar lump.
(* Rebuttable presumption !)
That's why courting Reform voters is so dangerous for the Tories.
This is the US. So we can't project wishful thinking.
Not sure they'll be smart enough to know I'm an active Tory member in a safe-ish constituency, but you never know.
Point is that there's a decent campaign under the radar online - but i expect the ground troops simply aren't there.
Soem Googling showed pictures of them with wires strung between pairs - e.g. the top picture on https://www.lagoon.co.uk/wakeboarding/history-of-wakeboarding-on-hove-lagoon/
Which indicates that they might be cable tows for wakeboarding, whatever that means! The fact the ladders are only anchored in one direction points towards that, I think.
He's a prime candidate for a stroke given his age and weight and he's going to be blowing his top regularly.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)
Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals
I think the real problem is that there are probably limits connected to geopolitical realities as to how much support the west can actually give Ukraine.
I don't see the forthcoming flawed 'Trump deal' as being an inevitable disaster, given where we are.
The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.
Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.
You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.
Ultimately, world gas supply fell because a large chunk of Russian gas export capacity was taken from the market. This happened because there are essentially only two routes out of Russia for natural gas: the pipeline that went through Ukraine itself and Nord Stream. The first was severed by the war, and the second by Ukraine in response to the war.
Now, it's possible that a quick Russian win would have forced the Ukrainian pipeline open. But it's equally likely that you would have seen sabotage. (See the numerous attacks on oil and gas pipelines in Nigeria to understand how easy it is for insurgents to damage energy infrastructure.)
The fault lies in one place, and one place alone, Moscow. They chose to invade Ukraine, and they miscalculated the response.
I know Julian Knights’ family and he’s a good person. The kind the tories will need for rebuilding into the centre. The loyalty at all costs isn’t the way forward for them. Defending the indefensible isn’t strength. It’s weakness of character.
Two good polls for Labour out this morning showing 24% and 25% leads (Techne and YouGov).
I doubt I will bother watching the tv debates which will make no discernible difference. The campaign is very dull because we the public made up our minds ages ago. Labour will win a landslide.
I’m off to see the Judy Chicago exhibition at The Serpentine galleries, followed by Elton John/David Furnish at the V&A. Will probably pop in to the neo-colonialism one too.
Also saw the wonderful Beryl Cook and Tom of Finland exhibition at Studio Voltaire, a very cute gallery in Clapham, staffed by the loveliest people.
Long live libertarianism. Long live Labour!
Have a nice day xx
In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).
Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.
Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.
Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.
There is cable towed water skiing at Holme Pierrepont. I had a mate who went who did not realise that you had to swing wide at corners, because it turned at right angles. So his towline exited stage-left and he continued in a straight line.
Here's a vid - it's like snowboarding on water. No wake involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JoYTsgtlAA
They like buggering around with water down there - remember the artificial surfing reef at Boscombe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boscombe_Surf_Reef
IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.
Come to Ashfield, home of Leeanderthal Man.
Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....
We could still, though, have made the decision two years ago to supply tanks, artillery, air defence and fighter aircraft in the quantities we've only recently committed to.
And they'd have arrived last year, rather than later this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_7MZa7u3IA
What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMuTVHmHDmI