Someone on here said the other day that there's only one LD MP from an ethnic minority, but I don't think that's right because the MPs for Eastbourne and Twickenham are both from EMs. (There may be others).
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Is there a toilet paper shortage in whatever part of France you’re currently in? I’ve never understood the socks thing, it just creates more laundry.
Not if they're already destined for the wash, also they generally frequent the bed area, don't they?
It's not like I go on London buses and think Fuck I need a wank and I reach into a rucksack and find an old sock and toss into that as I pass Archway, that's what @TimS does, as he happily admits, and good luck to him, frankly
I live South of the river, rarely go anywhere near Archway.
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Link the video. I dare you.
I won't be answering the question fwiw. I am at once both too terrible, and not terrible enough, a person to go into my pornography preferences.
With the definition of extreme porn in this country so utterly pathetic this is as much for self preservation as anything else.
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely the motive is 99.9% likely to be that he didn't like Donald Trump? (I suppose it could be that he wanted to start a civil war in the United States and wasn't particularly bothered about Trump one way or the other).
Let's just hope there's no political betting angle: "the gunman was set to incur a $300,000 loss on the British Betfair exchange".
I notice the King of Spain is in the trophy presentation team along with the Prince of Wales but the King of England (and the UK) is not.
I have never seen Charles at a football match ever, although he sent the obligatory good luck message I expect he couldn't care less who wins and didn't even watch it and has been eating organic asparagus and drinking Pimms and reading in his garden in Highgrove
I am not a great fan of Charles but he has cancer and is under treatment
An unnecessary and unkind remark
It was nothing of the kind, anyway half the country hates football too
Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely the motive is 99.9% likely to be that he didn't like Donald Trump? (I suppose it could be that he wanted to start a civil war in the United States and wasn't particularly bothered about Trump one way or the other).
Let's just hope there's no political betting angle: "the gunman was set to incur a $300,000 loss on the British Betfair exchange".
“He bet heavily against an early election in the UK, but was left with huge debts after lawmakers close to Rishi Sunak cashed in.”
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
Even if Trump 2.0 is nailed on they could still save some stuff lower down the ticket by running a candidate who could actually debate and run the country for four years.
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Is there a toilet paper shortage in whatever part of France you’re currently in? I’ve never understood the socks thing, it just creates more laundry.
Not if they're already destined for the wash, also they generally frequent the bed area, don't they?
It's not like I go on London buses and think Fuck I need a wank and I reach into a rucksack and find an old sock and toss into that as I pass Archway, that's what @TimS does, as he happily admits, and good luck to him, frankly
I live South of the river, rarely go anywhere near Archway.
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
Even if Trump 2.0 is nailed on they could still save some stuff lower down the ticket by running a candidate who could actually debate and run the country for four years.
If it was all over bar the shouting Trump should be on 55-60% in most polls by next weekend after this, his VP pick and GOP convention bounce.
If he isn't, then with Biden's Dem convention bounce still yet to come the race remains very much in contention
Disappointing but Spain are a class team. England outperformed expectations by getting to the final tbh.
Kane's England days are over imo.
They started the tournament as favourites and had the easiest draw possible to get to the final.
Favourites in the U.K. betting market, I assume you mean?
In the FIFA rankings England were fourth behind only France and Belgium (of European teams), at the outset of the tournament. So England being ONE of the favourites is entirely fair, but maybe not THE favourites, but after the draw then yes they were even bigger faves
Given the depth of talent, Southgate should have won something in his seventy trillion years of managing the side, but in the end, he just hasn't got it
I'm not sure what "it" is. Some kind of life-career version of "noom". It's a bit more than "luck", it's a weird human quality which turns talent into success. We need a word for it. And it is not just "luck"
I hope we don't wind up seeing Southgate in 10-20 years time as some sort of golden age, as we did after Robson.
It is tough to win tournaments with so many other capable teams, one winner, 23 losers of which at least half a dozen are pretty much as good as you, but somehow, somehow we need a better return on this purple patch before it inevitably dissipates.
You stand to be disappointed. England are a quarter final-level outfit currently outperforming their finite capabilities. The only way is down.
You’re Welsh, aren’t you? Still predicting every England defeat?
No, the husband is Welsh but he has less of a downer on England than I do. I'm just a pessimist, or a realist, depending on how you look at it. As I asserted further down thread, they're good, but not quite good enough, and this has been a consistent problem since circa 1966. Which is why people still go on about 1966.
Change the sport or the team and it's a different matter. It's entirely possible that the England women's football team will have won the European Championship another three or four times before the men make another final. The former simply operate at a higher level relative to their peers than do the latter, who are probably going to need a fluke if they're ever going to get past all the technically superior teams that stand to block their path. All the scrapping and determination and the huge amount of good luck the men had in that tournament was for nought when they encountered a better team playing at about 50% of their capability. That's simply where they are.
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
He's really not that popular. What is the matter with the Democrats?
If you'd told Americans from say 1997 that all this would be happening a relatively short time later (in historical terms) they probably wouldn't have believed it.
If you'd told Americans from say 1997 that all this would be happening a relatively short time later (in historical terms) they probably wouldn't have believed it.
Lisa Simpson predicted President Trump back in 2000.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely the motive is 99.9% likely to be that he didn't like Donald Trump? (I suppose it could be that he wanted to start a civil war in the United States and wasn't particularly bothered about Trump one way or the other).
Let's just hope there's no political betting angle: "the gunman was set to incur a $300,000 loss on the British Betfair exchange".
There's a potential political betting angle! The shooter apparently (*) gave $15 to a Dem PAC on the day of Biden's inauguration. This is a weird thing to do considering the election is already over and he proceeds to register Republican some months later, so the thought is that maybe the donation was to *settle a bet*.
* There's some dispute over whether its the same guy but the postcode seems to match
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
There is a point in a difficult situation where people decide to lose. When it seems so difficult you start to write off the loss and just coast. This is the worst part of any given project and a good leader will note it, going round each person and enthusing/frightening them back to renewed action. The Dems are, quite simply, rubbish.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely the motive is 99.9% likely to be that he didn't like Donald Trump? (I suppose it could be that he wanted to start a civil war in the United States and wasn't particularly bothered about Trump one way or the other).
No, at least not 99.9%. He seems to be registered Republican, didn't vote in primaries, and was wearing a t-shirt from a not particularly Dem-loving YouTube gun channel. So he might have just wanted to die famous, like the regular everyday teenage high school shooters.
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Seriously. what humourless c*nt flagged this. I am trying to cheer the nation, and this is funny. Twats
There is an argument that this type of post puts off female visitors to the site, although most of them seem to have already gone regrettably.
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Lightweight
Who flagged this? You know. We all need to know. This is good comedy material and I'm gving it away free, so I've earned the right to know what prissy tiny-cocked fuckwit thought they would righteously flag this
It was flagged no fewer than six times. Which is a record.
Congratulations. Have a cigar.
HAHAHAHAHA
I feel superbly vindicated
For the record, if the Office of Budgetary Responsibility is reading, I find I often switch - mid-wank - between photos and videos of ex girlfriends, and professional porn, then I'll suddenly think Shit no, I want to look at my ex wife being spanked by a lesbian domme for the actual moment, so I go back to that. Are many PB-ers similar? I have a feeling @Big_G_NorthWales is on my wavelength here
I use either my raw imagination or porn videos on my phone mainly
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Seriously. what humourless c*nt flagged this. I am trying to cheer the nation, and this is funny. Twats
There is an argument that this type of post puts off female visitors to the site, although most of them seem to have already gone regrettably.
Probably, but it also amuses (at least a subset of) the male visitors. Or even if they're not amused by these posts, then a fair few more - of both sexes - will understand that allowing the jester that is Leon requires putting up with this sort of thing.
Not up to me to say where the dividing line should be of course. All I will say is the most fun job I ever had was one where anyone was allowed but they had to be able to handle the heat. In practice, sadly, there was a lot of discrimination in hiring because of fear that the company would be sued to oblivion - women needed to be vouched for etc but also most graduates couldn't cut it either. Please don't think that making things milquetoast doesn't have a cost - it absolutely does fun-wise.
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
He's really not that popular. What is the matter with the Democrats?
Learned helplessness and the fact that their positions are secure regardless. They aren't going to lose a penny piece in a Trump administration, except for Kamala Harris, and she thinks she'll have a shot in 2028. It's a game to them. They don't believe it'll make a difference who wins or loses, they just want the big plane and the power. I'm not even sure they like the poor. If you don't know or care why you are fighting, why fight?
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
He's really not that popular. What is the matter with the Democrats?
Learned helplessness and the fact that their positions are secure regardless. They aren't going to lose a penny piece in a Trump administration, except for Kamala Harris, and she thinks she'll have a shot in 2028. It's a game to them. They don't believe it'll make a difference who wins or loses, they just want the big plane and the power. I'm not even sure they like the poor. If you don't know or care why you are fighting, why fight?
Please leave ME out of YOUR cynical viewpoint.
Seeing as my "big plane" is a public bus, and my "power" keeps getting shut off for non-payment.
Seems as accurate as rest of the rag's reportage; so what's your point?
Perhaps the most relevant historical parallel to the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in 2024, was the attempted assassination of former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
He was getting ready to give a speech when he was shot and wounded - "pinked" was the term he used.
One difference was that TR actually delivered his address (most of it anyway) while DJT did not.
Another was when Teddy was attacked, he was clearly (albeit in absence of any polling) running way behind the 1912 POTUS front-runner Woodrow Wilson. There WAS a surge in support for the Bull Moose in the immediate aftermath, but it subsided by Election Day, when Roosevelt finished 2nd, which was ahead of the incumbent William H. Taft; but that outcome was already likely when the would-be assassin shot TR.
BTW (and also FYI) the motive in 1912, was that the shooter was convinced that Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for the act that put him in the White House in the first place: the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, shortly after TR was elected VP as WMcK's running mate.
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
He's really not that popular. What is the matter with the Democrats?
Learned helplessness and the fact that their positions are secure regardless. They aren't going to lose a penny piece in a Trump administration, except for Kamala Harris, and she thinks she'll have a shot in 2028. It's a game to them. They don't believe it'll make a difference who wins or loses, they just want the big plane and the power. I'm not even sure they like the poor. If you don't know or care why you are fighting, why fight?
Please leave ME out of YOUR cynical viewpoint.
Seeing as my "big plane" is a public bus, and my "power" keeps getting shut off for non-payment.
I understand your point, but perhaps you may recall this:
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
He's really not that popular. What is the matter with the Democrats?
Learned helplessness and the fact that their positions are secure regardless. They aren't going to lose a penny piece in a Trump administration, except for Kamala Harris, and she thinks she'll have a shot in 2028. It's a game to them. They don't believe it'll make a difference who wins or loses, they just want the big plane and the power. I'm not even sure they like the poor. If you don't know or care why you are fighting, why fight?
Please leave ME out of YOUR cynical viewpoint.
Seeing as my "big plane" is a public bus, and my "power" keeps getting shut off for non-payment.
I understand your point, but perhaps you may recall this:
I agree with this, although I'd probably choose 1983 instead of 1984.
"Let me put it simply. Western pop culture peaked in the 1980s. More than that, I’d argue it peaked exactly 40 years ago, in 1984. (The fact I was then at the very receptive age of seven is, in this case, mere coincidence.)"
I agree with this, although I'd probably choose 1983 instead of 1984.
"Let me put it simply. Western pop culture peaked in the 1980s. More than that, I’d argue it peaked exactly 40 years ago, in 1984. (The fact I was then at the very receptive age of seven is, in this case, mere coincidence.)"
They need to do some kind of soft interview together and demonstrate that they can get along. It sucks, because I think Trump is completely unsuitable to be President and he debases American politics by his mere presence but the price of this assassination attempt is that American politics must embrace Donald Trump into the mainstream and treat him like any other Republican candidate. That's dangerous but, while the temperature seems to have lowered, the Republic could be at stake. Biden and Trump need to give each other the space to row back and reset partisan politics. Question is, are either capable of it?
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
Is there a toilet paper shortage in whatever part of France you’re currently in? I’ve never understood the socks thing, it just creates more laundry.
Not if they're already destined for the wash, also they generally frequent the bed area, don't they?
It's not like I go on London buses and think Fuck I need a wank and I reach into a rucksack and find an old sock and toss into that as I pass Archway, that's what @TimS does, as he happily admits, and good luck to him, frankly
I live South of the river, rarely go anywhere near Archway.
That's an interestingly specific denial.
He's denying links to Highgate.
And the Archway suicide bridge was nearly as well barricaded as Clifton last time I crossed it, so he's probably hinting his suitcases aren't suspicious.
They need to do some kind of soft interview together and demonstrate that they can get along. It sucks, because I think Trump is completely unsuitable to be President and he debases American politics by his mere presence but the price of this assassination attempt is that American politics must embrace Donald Trump into the mainstream and treat him like any other Republican candidate. That's dangerous but, while the temperature seems to have lowered, the Republic could be at stake. Biden and Trump need to give each other the space to row back and reset partisan politics. Question is, are either capable of it?
Yes, everyone needs to calm down a little, and attack the policies of their opponents rather than the characters themselves. Yes that’s difficult when the opponent is someone as brash, uncouth, and self-serving as Trump, but he’s really not going to be a king despite some of the rhetoric from all sides of the political spectrum. Hopefully this incident is the turning point for what’s been nearly a decade of hyper-polarisation in US politics.
Meanwhile, the profile of the attacker is a very weird one. Your typical loner with a keen interest in gaming and guns that usually turns up as a school shooter, rather than someone politically-motivated. Perhaps someone who thought he could make himself infamous by doing something stupid when the president came to town? Some of the reports seem to suggest he was with a group of friends, and just wandered off seemingly at random to climb up on top of the building. It’s the familiar story of mental illness and access to weapons, rather than anything more than that.
I agree with this, although I'd probably choose 1983 instead of 1984.
"Let me put it simply. Western pop culture peaked in the 1980s. More than that, I’d argue it peaked exactly 40 years ago, in 1984. (The fact I was then at the very receptive age of seven is, in this case, mere coincidence.)"
I’d go with a few years later, 1989, to take in the explosion in dance music and rave culture in the last two years of that decade.
Yeah, you cannot really discount the rave generation.
But IMV the rot started in the late 1980s, with Stock Aitken and Waterman. They were geniuses, but they understood the process by which you could write hit songs even for relatively untalented people, and get them to the top of the charts with little of the gruntwork bands used to have to do of playing pubs and clubs nightly. Their work was then built on by Simon Cowell et al to produce hits and 'stars' on a factory basis.
This significantly distorted the industry. I don't know enough about 'modern' pop music to say whether t'Internet and streaming has meant it's easier for hard-working talented people to become stars, or if there are still significant gatekeepers in the industry and/or media.
(Incidentally, the KLF wrote a book 'The Manual' on how to have a Number One hit the easy way, which dissected SAW's techniques.)
I agree with this, although I'd probably choose 1983 instead of 1984.
"Let me put it simply. Western pop culture peaked in the 1980s. More than that, I’d argue it peaked exactly 40 years ago, in 1984. (The fact I was then at the very receptive age of seven is, in this case, mere coincidence.)"
I’d go with a few years later, 1989, to take in the explosion in dance music and rave culture in the last two years of that decade.
Yeah, you cannot really discount the rave generation.
But IMV the rot started in the late 1980s, with Stock Aitken and Waterman. They were geniuses, but they understood the process by which you could write hit songs even for relatively untalented people, and get them to the top of the charts with little of the gruntwork bands used to have to do of playing pubs and clubs nightly. Their work was then built on by Simon Cowell et al to produce hits and 'stars' on a factory basis.
This significantly distorted the industry. I don't know enough about 'modern' pop music to say whether t'Internet and streaming has meant it's easier for hard-working talented people to become stars, or if there are still significant gatekeepers in the industry and/or media.
(Incidentally, the KLF wrote a book 'The Manual' on how to have a Number One hit the easy way, which dissected SAW's techniques.)
From looking at what passes for the modern pop charts, I’d say that being online helps talented bands sell tickets to a wider audience than their own home town, but the majority of the big streamers are still the industry plants that make a lot of money for the labels in exchange for very little work.
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
I agree with this, although I'd probably choose 1983 instead of 1984.
"Let me put it simply. Western pop culture peaked in the 1980s. More than that, I’d argue it peaked exactly 40 years ago, in 1984. (The fact I was then at the very receptive age of seven is, in this case, mere coincidence.)"
I’d go with a few years later, 1989, to take in the explosion in dance music and rave culture in the last two years of that decade.
Yeah, you cannot really discount the rave generation.
But IMV the rot started in the late 1980s, with Stock Aitken and Waterman. They were geniuses, but they understood the process by which you could write hit songs even for relatively untalented people, and get them to the top of the charts with little of the gruntwork bands used to have to do of playing pubs and clubs nightly. Their work was then built on by Simon Cowell et al to produce hits and 'stars' on a factory basis.
This significantly distorted the industry. I don't know enough about 'modern' pop music to say whether t'Internet and streaming has meant it's easier for hard-working talented people to become stars, or if there are still significant gatekeepers in the industry and/or media.
(Incidentally, the KLF wrote a book 'The Manual' on how to have a Number One hit the easy way, which dissected SAW's techniques.)
From looking at what passes for the modern pop charts, I’d say that being online helps talented bands sell tickets to a wider audience than their own home town, but the majority of the big streamers are still the industry plants that make a lot of money for the labels in exchange for very little work.
I remember reading the KLF book in the ‘90s. A friend of mine, who managed bands, had a copy on his desk.
I had an original copy, bought in 1991 from a record shop in London, which I've either lost or put away in a box somewhere. Apparently originals can sell for a good amount of money. Since then I've bought a reprint, which again is probably in a box somewhere.
It was a really interesting read for its dissection of the industry (whilst supposedly being a manual on how to have a Number One, it is really a discussion of the industry. As might be expected given Drummond's previous non-musical roles in the music industry. I last read it a few years ago, and although the industry has massively changed, I think many of the lessons are transferable to other industries.
OK enough football. Let's get back to my much important daily schedule of chores
You failed to inform us of the number of wanks.
A fair and, in the light of recent geopolitical events (Ukraine, Trump, Gaza etc) an important question
I had THREE wanks in one day three days ago, it was one of those weird days, I discovered a cool new video on Xvideos; I had two wanks two days ago, yet just one yesterday (into some old socks) and I had NONE today. I don't know why
How is everybody else's wanking? It's something we rarely get into on PB because it comes to close to the endless fate of Scot Nats I guess, but maybe this is the right time, as we take a pause from global events and the sports
eg I find I mix my visual wanking material between photos and videos of exes, and pro porn, about 50/50. What does everyone else do?
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
A lot can happen . The commentariat seem to assume this cements Trumps win.
Being the victim of an assasination attempt doesn’t make a bad person suddenly good . Voters who loathe Trump aren’t suddenly going to vote for him.
The onus on not inflaming tensions doesn’t just rest with the Dems .
Trump will be under the spotlight , can he hold it together for 4 months ?
Viewed objectively, it’s likely to make Trump’s behaviour in office worse, and therefore the logical thing for supporters to do is review whether he’s still the right choice.
A lot can happen . The commentariat seem to assume this cements Trumps win.
Being the victim of an assasination attempt doesn’t make a bad person suddenly good . Voters who loathe Trump aren’t suddenly going to vote for him.
The onus on not inflaming tensions doesn’t just rest with the Dems .
Trump will be under the spotlight , can he hold it together for 4 months ?
Viewed objectively, it’s likely to make Trump’s behaviour in office worse, and therefore the logical thing for supporters to do is review whether he’s still the right choice.
Trump supporters and logic have been strangers for several years.
I have been trying to think of a candidate who survived an attempted assassination and went on to win. I can’t. But equally, I can’t think of another candidate who controlled the Supreme Court, tried to overthrow the government or was found guilty of multiple crimes either.
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
Not endorsing either but I suppose we'd rather they shot at presidential candidates than elementary schools?
Yes, I think a local school got lucky.
There is an elephant in the room around gun control. The right finds itself in the ludicrous position of not being able to comment on the fact a 20 year old was able to access a military grade assault rifle and get 6/7 shots off at a presidential candidate.
There has clearly been a major SS error but I reckon a contributory factor will be the number of MAGA folk wandering around with guns. The snipers on the roof were keeping an eye on someone else and had to swing round to the right when it kicked off. That movement is being deliberately excluded from the clips to make it look like they saw him but didn't take any action.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
The King isn't a big fan of sport except for polo. Don't think I've ever seen him at a cricket match either, or Wimbledon.
Camilla probably watched the womens' tennis final with a few fags, though yes I doubt the King bothered to watch that either. A night at the theatre or the opera is more his thing, as well as polo he has done a bit of sailing and showjumping but that is about as far as his interest in sport goes
We don't use that term any more because it's offensive. There are many alternatives available.
Someone forgot to tell the Pope.
Given his more liberal views on homosexuality, I find that hard to believe.
"The evidence was writ large in Italian newspapers reports that Francis has complained “there’s already too much faggotry” among trainee priests."
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
Not endorsing either but I suppose we'd rather they shot at presidential candidates than elementary schools?
Yes, I think a local school got lucky.
There is an elephant in the room around gun control. The right finds itself in the ludicrous position of not being able to comment on the fact a 20 year old was able to access a military grade assault rifle and get 6/7 shots off at a presidential candidate.
There has clearly been a major SS error but I reckon a contributory factor will be the number of MAGA folk wandering around with guns. The snipers on the roof were keeping an eye on someone else and had to swing round to the right when it kicked off. That movement is being deliberately excluded from the clips to make it look like they saw him but didn't take any action.
Relatedly, apparently the challenge for their convention is that when they held the state legislature they banned cities from making stricter gun control legislation than the state. They can exclude guns from the conference and the security barrier around it, but beyond that any nutcase, cosplayer or concerned vigilante can legally wander around with all kinds of weapons. It doesn't take much of a misunderstanding for one Good Guy With A Gun to kill another Good Guy With A Gun.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
Right, a busy day at work beckons. Laters.
Twitter being Twitter.
Nothing middle of the road and balanced gets any attention whatsoever.
They need to do some kind of soft interview together and demonstrate that they can get along. It sucks, because I think Trump is completely unsuitable to be President and he debases American politics by his mere presence but the price of this assassination attempt is that American politics must embrace Donald Trump into the mainstream and treat him like any other Republican candidate. That's dangerous but, while the temperature seems to have lowered, the Republic could be at stake. Biden and Trump need to give each other the space to row back and reset partisan politics. Question is, are either capable of it?
Yes, everyone needs to calm down a little, and attack the policies of their opponents rather than the characters themselves. Yes that’s difficult when the opponent is someone as brash, uncouth, and self-serving as Trump, but he’s really not going to be a king despite some of the rhetoric from all sides of the political spectrum. Hopefully this incident is the turning point for what’s been nearly a decade of hyper-polarisation in US politics.
Meanwhile, the profile of the attacker is a very weird one. Your typical loner with a keen interest in gaming and guns that usually turns up as a school shooter, rather than someone politically-motivated. Perhaps someone who thought he could make himself infamous by doing something stupid when the president came to town? Some of the reports seem to suggest he was with a group of friends, and just wandered off seemingly at random to climb up on top of the building. It’s the familiar story of mental illness and access to weapons, rather than anything more than that.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
That’s a good thread to read. He presents a plausible scenario, that these large events have several different types of police involved - Federal, State, and local, as well as private agencies - looking after different aspects of security, and that the co-ordination and communication between them isn’t necessarily as good as might be expected. The shooter, in the position he was in, could have easily been mistaken for an officer from a different branch of police looking after that area, and it wasn’t until shots were fired that the snipers behind the stage took him out. Those snipers looked like Federal types - USSS or FBI - but the shooter’s rooftop was outside the venue and likely under the control (or otherwise) of local cops.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
A lot can happen . The commentariat seem to assume this cements Trumps win.
Being the victim of an assasination attempt doesn’t make a bad person suddenly good . Voters who loathe Trump aren’t suddenly going to vote for him.
The onus on not inflaming tensions doesn’t just rest with the Dems .
Trump will be under the spotlight , can he hold it together for 4 months ?
Viewed objectively, it’s likely to make Trump’s behaviour in office worse, and therefore the logical thing for supporters to do is review whether he’s still the right choice.
Trump supporters and logic have been strangers for several years.
I have been trying to think of a candidate who survived an attempted assassination and went on to win. I can’t. But equally, I can’t think of another candidate who controlled the Supreme Court, tried to overthrow the government or was found guilty of multiple crimes either.
My initial reaction, probably like most people's, was that this would seal Trump's victory.
Now I'm wondering whether that's right. The image of Trump and the blood and the fist and the flag is certainly a dramatic one, but in terms of emotion isn't it also quite a threatening one? I'm sure it will enthuse his core, but I would guess it may also motivate those who fear a Trump presidency. Will it be attractive to the uncommitted?
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
That’s a good thread to read. He presents a plausible scenario, that these large events have several different types of police involved - Federal, State, and local, as well as private agencies - looking after different aspects of security, and that the co-ordination and communication between them isn’t necessarily as good as might be expected. The shooter, in the position he was in, could have easily been mistaken for an officer from a different branch of police looking after that area, and it wasn’t until shots were fired that the snipers behind the stage took him out. Those snipers looked like Federal types - USSS or FBI - but the shooter’s rooftop was outside the venue and likely under the control (or otherwise) of local cops.
What's more, this is interesting:
"I actually saw what can go wrong in these scenarios first-hand when President Bush’s Secret Service detail almost engaged a local police SWAT/counter sniper team during the 2004 G8 summit. No one had properly communicated the local SWAT team’s position so all the Secret Service saw was heavily armed individuals with a line of sight on the President. The whole thing was seconds away from being a tragic incident. "
Might lessons have been learnt (the counter-snipers engage threats beyond and outside areas of the local law enforcement's area of control), that allowed the shooter to fire because the local law enforcement failed?
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
A lot can happen . The commentariat seem to assume this cements Trumps win.
Being the victim of an assasination attempt doesn’t make a bad person suddenly good . Voters who loathe Trump aren’t suddenly going to vote for him.
The onus on not inflaming tensions doesn’t just rest with the Dems .
Trump will be under the spotlight , can he hold it together for 4 months ?
Viewed objectively, it’s likely to make Trump’s behaviour in office worse, and therefore the logical thing for supporters to do is review whether he’s still the right choice.
Trump supporters and logic have been strangers for several years.
I have been trying to think of a candidate who survived an attempted assassination and went on to win. I can’t. But equally, I can’t think of another candidate who controlled the Supreme Court, tried to overthrow the government or was found guilty of multiple crimes either.
My initial reaction, probably like most people's, was that this would seal Trump's victory.
Now I'm wondering whether that's right. The image of Trump and the blood and the fist and the flag is certainly a dramatic one, but in terms of emotion isn't it also quite a threatening one? I'm sure it will enthuse his core, but I would guess it may also motivate those who fear a Trump presidency. Will it be attractive to the uncommitted?
There are other imponderables. Not least, whether the shock will further derail Trump’s personality and make him appear even stranger. If he starts talking about sharks with guns trying to kill him he’s in real trouble.
Personally, I expected Biden to win before and I still expect him to win now. The only reason to hesitate is whether it might help Trump in Pennsylvania itself via a sympathy vote. If it does, that could conceivably flip the election.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
Quite a few also seem to have been asking why one of the snipers didn’t do a Roger Kirkpatrick.
Who's he?
I mak siccar!
Comyn sided with Edward I and was stabbed by Robert the Bruce as a result. Kirkpatrick finished him off.
As a (somewhat) distant descendant of Comyn, I feel I should defend him. The stabbing in the church was more likely a squalid squabble over dynastic advancement. The Scottish wars of independence began with the Comyns attacking a castle held by Bruce on behalf of Edward I.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
That’s a good thread to read. He presents a plausible scenario, that these large events have several different types of police involved - Federal, State, and local, as well as private agencies - looking after different aspects of security, and that the co-ordination and communication between them isn’t necessarily as good as might be expected. The shooter, in the position he was in, could have easily been mistaken for an officer from a different branch of police looking after that area, and it wasn’t until shots were fired that the snipers behind the stage took him out. Those snipers looked like Federal types - USSS or FBI - but the shooter’s rooftop was outside the venue and likely under the control (or otherwise) of local cops.
What's more, this is interesting:
"I actually saw what can go wrong in these scenarios first-hand when President Bush’s Secret Service detail almost engaged a local police SWAT/counter sniper team during the 2004 G8 summit. No one had properly communicated the local SWAT team’s position so all the Secret Service saw was heavily armed individuals with a line of sight on the President. The whole thing was seconds away from being a tragic incident. "
Might lessons have been learnt (the counter-snipers engage threats beyond and outside areas of the local law enforcement's area of control), that allowed the shooter to fire because the local law enforcement failed?
Yes indeed, it’s scary how close you can come to a “blue-on-blue” when there are so many different types of police involved, and they all have big guns.
One imagines the Fed snipers saying “Is he one of us?” and the call coming back “No”. Then it’s “Is he one of them?”, which means some Fed controller getting on a radio to the local cop controller to work out if he’s one of “them”. All of these stages take a few seconds, which was all the time that was needed.
Once he opened fire, the snipers understood that he was a threat and took him out. But until that point, they might have been engaging with other police, which would have gone down rather badly with all involved. It’s a pretty horrible situation for everyone. I think I’ll stick to playing with computers, rather than wanting to be a man with a big gun!
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
Not endorsing either but I suppose we'd rather they shot at presidential candidates than elementary schools?
Yes, I think a local school got lucky.
There is an elephant in the room around gun control. The right finds itself in the ludicrous position of not being able to comment on the fact a 20 year old was able to access a military grade assault rifle and get 6/7 shots off at a presidential candidate.
It wasn't "military grade" because it had no selective fire feature. Civilian AR-15-a-likes have a different receiver and hammer to prevent their conversion to full-auto or burst. The character of the weapon isn't really germane because there are plenty of other less scary rifles that will kill somebody if you shoot them in the head at 120m.
Something like an M4A1 would be the military grade equivalent. There are usually a few for sale on Telegram (always in Paris for some reason) if you fancy one. Presumably, they have made their way west from the localised unpleasantness in Donbas.
A lot can happen . The commentariat seem to assume this cements Trumps win.
Being the victim of an assasination attempt doesn’t make a bad person suddenly good . Voters who loathe Trump aren’t suddenly going to vote for him.
The onus on not inflaming tensions doesn’t just rest with the Dems .
Trump will be under the spotlight , can he hold it together for 4 months ?
Viewed objectively, it’s likely to make Trump’s behaviour in office worse, and therefore the logical thing for supporters to do is review whether he’s still the right choice.
Trump supporters and logic have been strangers for several years.
I have been trying to think of a candidate who survived an attempted assassination and went on to win. I can’t. But equally, I can’t think of another candidate who controlled the Supreme Court, tried to overthrow the government or was found guilty of multiple crimes either.
My initial reaction, probably like most people's, was that this would seal Trump's victory.
Now I'm wondering whether that's right. The image of Trump and the blood and the fist and the flag is certainly a dramatic one, but in terms of emotion isn't it also quite a threatening one? I'm sure it will enthuse his core, but I would guess it may also motivate those who fear a Trump presidency. Will it be attractive to the uncommitted?
There are other imponderables. Not least, whether the shock will further derail Trump’s personality and make him appear even stranger. If he starts talking about sharks with guns trying to kill him he’s in real trouble.
Personally, I expected Biden to win before and I still expect him to win now. The only reason to hesitate is whether it might help Trump in Pennsylvania itself via a sympathy vote. If it does, that could conceivably flip the election.
I wonder if this is the type of shock that brings the US back from the brink. I hope so but am realistic.
In terms of Trump, it seems he was very fortunate. One never knows how brushes with death affect the individual. How often do you hear people say of someone “of course they were never the same after…”. It’s the type of thing that could lead to a general decline in health.
Whichever candidate prevails in November given both are older than most Presidents, there has to be a higher probability than usual that whoever starts the term is not the President at the end.
And, utterly OT, reading up on DC20 rules (new TTRPG system currently in beta). Looks promising, going to try running some one shots next month. Much from 5e/Pathfinder2e as well as new stuff.
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
Not endorsing either but I suppose we'd rather they shot at presidential candidates than elementary schools?
Yes, I think a local school got lucky.
There is an elephant in the room around gun control. The right finds itself in the ludicrous position of not being able to comment on the fact a 20 year old was able to access a military grade assault rifle and get 6/7 shots off at a presidential candidate.
It wasn't "military grade" because it had no selective fire feature. Civilian AR-15-a-likes have a different receiver and hammer to prevent their conversion to full-auto or burst. The character of the weapon isn't really germane because there are plenty of other less scary rifles that will kill somebody if you shoot them in the head at 120m.
Something like an M4A1 would be the military grade equivalent. There are usually a few for sale on Telegram (always in Paris for some reason) if you fancy one. Presumably, they have made their way west from the localised unpleasantness in Donbas.
Fair enough. And Oswald pulled off two much better shots with what I presume was an inferior weapon.
Mr. Divvie, wasn't he invited to the church by Robert to discuss matters peacefully, then straight up murdered?
Mr Dancer, one imagines that the lesson was learned early on that if you had designs on murdering someone that convincing them of your amity and goodwill was the best way to gain access to your intended victim with their guard down.
At a more mundane level from the BBC, the victim from the Trump shooting changes his name (no, not American democracy):- “Corey went to church every Sunday,” he said. “Cory loved his community. Most especially, Corey loved his family.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2grvznd4jo
I notice the King of Spain is in the trophy presentation team along with the Prince of Wales but the King of England (and the UK) is not.
I have never seen Charles at a football match ever, although he sent the obligatory good luck message I expect he couldn't care less who wins and didn't even watch it and has been eating organic asparagus and drinking Pimms and reading in his garden in Highgrove
He has got cancer you idiot.
Didn't stop him attending Trooping the Colour or hosting the Emperor of Japan and he is opening Parliament next week
Trooping the Colour and hosting the Emperor are both WFH.
To give some context, for a gambling site, try getting travel insurance for an elderly bloke getting cancer treatment.
Insurance is just gambling - the odds should tell you something.
Comments
We saw it was starting to look edgy so cleared off and went for pizza.
What do they mean? Do they mean "other than not liking Donald Trump"?
I won't be answering the question fwiw. I am at once both too terrible, and not terrible enough, a person to go into my pornography preferences.
With the definition of extreme porn in this country so utterly pathetic this is as much for self preservation as anything else.
New: House Democrats tell @Axios that the fight over Biden's candidacy is on the back burner in the immediate aftermath of the Trump shooting.
Rep. Dean Phillips says it would be "unpatriotic and unprincipled" to focus on anything but the shooting.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation in tensions will last until the Democratic National Convention next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."
If he isn't, then with Biden's Dem convention bounce still yet to come the race remains very much in contention
Change the sport or the team and it's a different matter. It's entirely possible that the England women's football team will have won the European Championship another three or four times before the men make another final. The former simply operate at a higher level relative to their peers than do the latter, who are probably going to need a fluke if they're ever going to get past all the technically superior teams that stand to block their path. All the scrapping and determination and the huge amount of good luck the men had in that tournament was for nought when they encountered a better team playing at about 50% of their capability. That's simply where they are.
A lot can happen . The commentariat seem to assume this cements Trumps win.
Being the victim of an assasination attempt doesn’t make a bad person suddenly good . Voters who loathe Trump aren’t suddenly going to vote for him.
The onus on not inflaming tensions doesn’t just rest with the Dems .
Trump will be under the spotlight , can he hold it together for 4 months ?
* There's some dispute over whether its the same guy but the postcode seems to match
Not up to me to say where the dividing line should be of course. All I will say is the most fun job I ever had was one where anyone was allowed but they had to be able to handle the heat. In practice, sadly, there was a lot of discrimination in hiring because of fear that the company would be sued to oblivion - women needed to be vouched for etc but also most graduates couldn't cut it either. Please don't think that making things milquetoast doesn't have a cost - it absolutely does fun-wise.
"In June 5 1968, JFK’s brother Robert, a would-be president, was killed when he was shot by Jack Ruby at the Ambassador hotel in Los Angeles."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/14/history-of-us-assassination-attempts-from-lincoln-to-trump/
See new posts
Conversation
Political Polls
@PpollingNumbers
#New General Election Poll
🔵 Biden 40% (+3)
🔴 Trump 37%
🟡 Kennedy 10%
Last poll was Biden +2!
NBC #B - 7/9
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1812484194401923114
Seeing as my "big plane" is a public bus, and my "power" keeps getting shut off for non-payment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51yg8d4zdvo
A good sign, healthwise.
Judging from PBer comments during and after the game that is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html
Perhaps the most relevant historical parallel to the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in 2024, was the attempted assassination of former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
He was getting ready to give a speech when he was shot and wounded - "pinked" was the term he used.
One difference was that TR actually delivered his address (most of it anyway) while DJT did not.
Another was when Teddy was attacked, he was clearly (albeit in absence of any polling) running way behind the 1912 POTUS front-runner Woodrow Wilson. There WAS a surge in support for the Bull Moose in the immediate aftermath, but it subsided by Election Day, when Roosevelt finished 2nd, which was ahead of the incumbent William H. Taft; but that outcome was already likely when the would-be assassin shot TR.
BTW (and also FYI) the motive in 1912, was that the shooter was convinced that Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for the act that put him in the White House in the first place: the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, shortly after TR was elected VP as WMcK's running mate.
The White House"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOPJdEYX3ZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL8aKMaOewE
President condemns political violence in Oval Office address a day after assassination attempt on Donald Trump"
https://www.ft.com/content/b78b5bdf-8af9-49d1-9e43-242b8e4f4634
"Let me put it simply. Western pop culture peaked in the 1980s. More than that, I’d argue it peaked exactly 40 years ago, in 1984. (The fact I was then at the very receptive age of seven is, in this case, mere coincidence.)"
https://thecritic.co.uk/living-in-the-80s/
https://x.com/POStrategies/status/1812667048100610240?t=EE3XnzM1aw3hqwTg1Ob3qQ&s=19
And the Archway suicide bridge was nearly as well barricaded as Clifton last time I crossed it, so he's probably hinting his suitcases aren't suspicious.
Meanwhile, the profile of the attacker is a very weird one. Your typical loner with a keen interest in gaming and guns that usually turns up as a school shooter, rather than someone politically-motivated. Perhaps someone who thought he could make himself infamous by doing something stupid when the president came to town? Some of the reports seem to suggest he was with a group of friends, and just wandered off seemingly at random to climb up on top of the building. It’s the familiar story of mental illness and access to weapons, rather than anything more than that.
Another quality Spanish beer for the market.
But IMV the rot started in the late 1980s, with Stock Aitken and Waterman. They were geniuses, but they understood the process by which you could write hit songs even for relatively untalented people, and get them to the top of the charts with little of the gruntwork bands used to have to do of playing pubs and clubs nightly. Their work was then built on by Simon Cowell et al to produce hits and 'stars' on a factory basis.
This significantly distorted the industry. I don't know enough about 'modern' pop music to say whether t'Internet and streaming has meant it's easier for hard-working talented people to become stars, or if there are still significant gatekeepers in the industry and/or media.
(Incidentally, the KLF wrote a book 'The Manual' on how to have a Number One hit the easy way, which dissected SAW's techniques.)
The likes of Spotify are also accused of a modern version of the the old-fasioned radio payola that was banned some decades ago, the labels pushing their manufactured crap whether the audience wants it or not. https://www.vox.com/culture/357907/spotify-sabrina-carpenter-espresso-chappell-roan-algorithm
I remember reading the KLF book in the ‘90s. A friend of mine, who managed bands, had a copy on his desk.
From a quick browse of Twitter this morning, the right-wing are totally convinced that the security, led by the Secret Service, at best allowed the shooting of Trump to happen, and at worst encouraged the attack. Meanwhile, the left-wing are also convinced it was staged, by Trump and his team to garner sympathy and present him as strong, that’s if there were any bullets fired at him at all. Meanwhile the mainstream news is trying their best to minimise the attack while still calling Trump evil.
Sadly, America seems just as polarised today as it was 48 hours ago. Ho hum.
Right, a busy day at work beckons. Laters.
It was a really interesting read for its dissection of the industry (whilst supposedly being a manual on how to have a Number One, it is really a discussion of the industry. As might be expected given Drummond's previous non-musical roles in the music industry. I last read it a few years ago, and although the industry has massively changed, I think many of the lessons are transferable to other industries.
https://x.com/historyrock_/status/1812455580419658016
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/trump-rally-gunman-thomas-crooks-invs/index.html
Not endorsing either but I suppose we'd rather they shot at presidential candidates than elementary schools?
It can’t be Marco Rubio unless Trump switches his registration to New York.
The general belief seems to be that Burgum is too sane.
The smart money is therefore settling on JD Vance.
This is a rather good analysis of why that would be a stupid idea.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/j-d-vance-would-be-a-weak-running-mate/amp/
However, Trump so stupid, so that won’t stop him.
I have been trying to think of a candidate who survived an attempted assassination and went on to win. I can’t. But equally, I can’t think of another candidate who controlled the Supreme Court, tried to overthrow the government or was found guilty of multiple crimes either.
There is an elephant in the room around gun control. The right finds itself in the ludicrous position of not being able to comment on the fact a 20 year old was able to access a military grade assault rifle and get 6/7 shots off at a presidential candidate.
There has clearly been a major SS error but I reckon a contributory factor will be the number of MAGA folk wandering around with guns. The snipers on the roof were keeping an eye on someone else and had to swing round to the right when it kicked off. That movement is being deliberately excluded from the clips to make it look like they saw him but didn't take any action.
People have been asking why the Secret Service snipers did not see the gunmen. Several sources (including (1)) state that was probably because they're focussed on long-range threats; nearer ones, such as this shooter, were *inside* their ring of interest. Which was why the sniper had to lower his gun to engage the shooter.
Also of interest: "Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings."
(1) https://x.com/LtTimMcMillan/status/1812383798740324380
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/pope-francis-faggot-slur-saint-3078599
Nothing middle of the road and balanced gets any attention whatsoever.
Comyn sided with Edward I and was stabbed by Robert the Bruce as a result. Kirkpatrick finished him off.
He came out in a panic saying ‘I think I’ve killed him!’
‘Only think?’ asked Roger Kirkpatrick. Don’t worry. I’ll make sure.’ So he went into the church and stabbed this man again.
To this day the motto of Clan Kirkpatrick is ‘I mak siccar.’
Now I'm wondering whether that's right. The image of Trump and the blood and the fist and the flag is certainly a dramatic one, but in terms of emotion isn't it also quite a threatening one? I'm sure it will enthuse his core, but I would guess it may also motivate those who fear a Trump presidency. Will it be attractive to the uncommitted?
"I actually saw what can go wrong in these scenarios first-hand when President Bush’s Secret Service detail almost engaged a local police SWAT/counter sniper team during the 2004 G8 summit. No one had properly communicated the local SWAT team’s position so all the Secret Service saw was heavily armed individuals with a line of sight on the President.
The whole thing was seconds away from being a tragic incident. "
Might lessons have been learnt (the counter-snipers engage threats beyond and outside areas of the local law enforcement's area of control), that allowed the shooter to fire because the local law enforcement failed?
The Comyn/Bruce relationship is hard to track. Kept switching sides.
Personally, I expected Biden to win before and I still expect him to win now. The only reason to hesitate is whether it might help Trump in Pennsylvania itself via a sympathy vote. If it does, that could conceivably flip the election.
One imagines the Fed snipers saying “Is he one of us?” and the call coming back “No”. Then it’s “Is he one of them?”, which means some Fed controller getting on a radio to the local cop controller to work out if he’s one of “them”. All of these stages take a few seconds, which was all the time that was needed.
Once he opened fire, the snipers understood that he was a threat and took him out. But until that point, they might have been engaging with other police, which would have gone down rather badly with all involved. It’s a pretty horrible situation for everyone. I think I’ll stick to playing with computers, rather than wanting to be a man with a big gun!
Something like an M4A1 would be the military grade equivalent. There are usually a few for sale on Telegram (always in Paris for some reason) if you fancy one. Presumably, they have made their way west from the localised unpleasantness in Donbas.
In terms of Trump, it seems he was very fortunate. One never knows how brushes with death affect the individual. How often do you hear people say of someone “of course they were never the same after…”. It’s the type of thing that could lead to a general decline in health.
Whichever candidate prevails in November given both are older than most Presidents, there has to be a higher probability than usual that whoever starts the term is not the President at the end.
Mr. Divvie, wasn't he invited to the church by Robert to discuss matters peacefully, then straight up murdered?
NEW THREAD
“Corey went to church every Sunday,” he said. “Cory loved his community. Most especially, Corey loved his family.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2grvznd4jo
Insurance is just gambling - the odds should tell you something.