In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
The VP has rarely, in modern times, delivered their own state.
Shapiro had various negative issues with the base.
Walk has nearly no negatives, with a wide range of groups. That he was endorsed by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups is a particular example.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
If she ever makes it to the UK she'll be walking around with the equivalent of FART written on her forehead.
The person who had this done, Rain Monroe, actually is British apparently.
I rather suspect it's a fake. The video is cut in a way that suggests it, and it's obviously the sort of stunt wannabee "influencers" pull for clicks and follows.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
I agree with most of this but I don't think the main reason for her losing the primary was being seen as too far left. The problem was that she didn't really convince the left either. They were mocking her for her very small-bore narrowly-targetted policy proposals. She tried to straddle both horses and ended up falling off both of them, and then she ran out of money.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
I don’t recall Harris losing because she was of the left. She was one of the more centrist candidates (and disliked by the left for her former prosecutor role). She lost because she was a bit inept in the campaign and a mediocre public speaker. Hopefully she’s improved since then.
Of course, crowd size isn't conclusive, especially given how few people live in Montana, but it is instructive that Trump can't fill even small venues in the way he used to.
There's no doubt he's in decline but rather than post for the 1000th time about how Trump2 is not happening (which remains my view) let me for a change air a few concerns I have about the election:
The polls. Last time they underestimated his vote. How can we be sure they aren't doing it again?
Mail-in ballots. Because of Covid they dominated in 2020 and it favoured the Dems. This time the in-person proportion will be higher. Will that favour Trump?
Shenanigans. We've seen the lengths he's prepared to go to to be declared the winner of an election he's lost. He now not only owns the GOP, he has the SC in his pocket. How can we price in the chances of him being able to turn defeat into victory via corruption, intimidation and judicial interference?
Turnout. Trump's support is passionate. Before Biden pulled out the same wasn't true of the Dems. Harris has changed this. She's energized the base and certain key demographics. But can she hold and build on this enthusiasm all the way to Nov?
Gender. It's harder for women in politics. They have things to overcome that men don't. What is deemed strong in a man is seen as bossy in a woman. A man's cutting humour is a woman's bitchiness. Etc etc. A first ever female president would be a massive deal. Are they ready to do it?
It's because of these type of thoughts that I have Harris as a clear (60/40) favourite rather than an overwhelming (80/20) one.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
Shapiro might have struggled explaining why his chum Netanyahu thought a bomb on a school in Gaza killing 100 was a good idea. I'm sure she made the right choice. I wouldn't think it a good idea for anyone to hitch their wagon to Netanyahu even indirectly at the moment
If she ever makes it to the UK she'll be walking around with the equivalent of FART written on her forehead.
At least the Republicans have kept the same leader for a while. Equivalent Tory fangirl would need a very big forehead to have Boris, Truss, Sunak tattooed and crossed out plus space to fit in the next one.
There is that Tory Boy pillock from Doncaster who has had the word "Moggmentum" tattooed on his chest.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
The election is unusual in that 45% will vote for one candidate no matter what, and 45% will vote against him, no matter what.
So projections, this far out, are unusually worthwhile.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
I assumed this chap is from Republic, but no, not a bit of it. Former BBC presentator and still a commentator on royal stuff.
(a) he'd only have spoken out on Government advice, so blame that republican Starmer and (b) he wouldn't have wanted to take any position that could be misconstrued as vaguely political, lest it affect his unifying message, so calling for calm is quite right
I really don’t see what Charles has done wrong. We really don’t want our monarch getting political, and it would also have been unhelpful in making the riots look like a bigger deal than they were.
Aside from the different targets, it was essentially what the same people do in Faliraki and Magaluf every August.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
I agree with most of this but I don't think the main reason for her losing the primary was being seen as too far left. The problem was that she didn't really convince the left either. They were mocking her for her very small-bore narrowly-targetted policy proposals. She tried to straddle both horses and ended up falling off both of them, and then she ran out of money.
I think this is accurate. She’d spent years building the “Democrat Prosecutor - fair but tough on crime” image. Then tried to run away from it because of BLM.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
I don’t recall Harris losing because she was of the left. She was one of the more centrist candidates (and disliked by the left for her former prosecutor role). She lost because she was a bit inept in the campaign and a mediocre public speaker. Hopefully she’s improved since then.
It was super crowded and Biden had the name recognition and seniority. Momentum was with Sanders and Biden was best placed to stop Sanders, it didn't really matter what the others did, even the likes of Buttigieg who ran an excellent campaign were largely irrelevant as was Harris.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
I can't stand Trump, but this week's polling shows the race as nothing but a coin-toss.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
Shapiro might have struggled explaining why his chum Netanyahu thought a bomb on a school in Gaza killing 100 was a good idea. I'm sure she made the right choice. I wouldn't think it a good idea for anyone to hitch their wagon to Netanyahu even indirectly at the moment
Is he mates with Nethanyahu and is he responsible for justifying the atrocity in Gaza (there’s a few here who will) ?
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
If she'd picked Shapiro the news would be all about that woman who committed suicide by stabbing herself repeatedly in the back of the head.
Well, it might, but Pennsylvania is almost a must-win for Harris. Lose that State and there is still a path to victory, but it is very narrow.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
I assumed this chap is from Republic, but no, not a bit of it. Former BBC presentator and still a commentator on royal stuff.
(a) he'd only have spoken out on Government advice, so blame that republican Starmer and (b) he wouldn't have wanted to take any position that could be misconstrued as vaguely political, lest it affect his unifying message, so calling for calm is quite right
I really don’t see what Charles has done wrong. We really don’t want our monarch getting political, and it would also have been unhelpful in making the riots look like a bigger deal than they were.
Aside from the different targets, it was essentially what the same people do in Faliraki and Magaluf every August.
Republicans just want to attack him for whatever he does or doesn't do for Reasons.
Another debate victory Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign Fire Vance Fire himself Another assassination attempt. A social media storm/riot Dirt on his opponents Economic crash
SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
No, but the Constitution also says, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen" and has a similar provision regarding Representatives. It also talks about criminals on the run being returned to the state "from which he fled". It is hard to see how SCOTUS could rule that the President must be male without also disqualifying female Senators and Representatives, and making it easier for female criminals to escape justice.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Hint, it's because Trump is really weird. Even if people don't think he's a monster, his oddity is part of his charisma, he does not speak or act in a regular way and it can be captivating. Some people love that, some are put off by it, that's really how simple it is.
Certainly the first signs are promising there are more of the latter now than the former, but the USA is genuinely polarised 50/50 give or take a few percent, and where those percent fall (ie in which swing states) is critical - it would be absurd to think Trump has no chance anymore. Especially, and no apologies for harping on it, given the risk his allies do not certify election results they do not like.
The Telegraph does seem to be coming up with a lot of "Labour are looking at doing X" stories at the moment. I get the feeling they're outrage-fishing.
I'll wait to see what actually gets brought to the table. Though make no mistake, I am concerned that Labour's authoritarian tendencies are already starting to show.
PB Brains Trust: any finance whizzes know what to do about Royal Mail shares and the take over? I have a handful of £100s or so from when it was privatised. I object to the takeover of our ancient postal services by a foreign owner. It seems shareholders cannot vote against they can only either vote to accept or do nothing.
Do nothing seems to be the only way to say 'I don't want it sold'.
If you do nothing though then it seems from some stuff I've seen on Redit that you can end up with a bunch of delisted shares you can't sell.
I had an interesting experience about the effect of Tim Walz this week. I’ve been embedded in a client’s office for a couple of weeks and one of the “tits and teeth” girls (in her late twenties)there who are bright but clearly useful for their appearance too was so excited yesterday telling us about “Tim-Tok” and it seems all the lovely young things absolutely love Walz and they all share memes about him, clips of him etc.
She’s one of the last people in the world I would think would be remotely interested in anything political.
If he’s having this effect on people a million miles away from the US in most respects then he could be the best decision Harris has made.
Hint, it's because Trump is really weird. Even if people don't think he's a monster, his oddity is part of his charisma, he does not speak or act in a regular way and it can be captivating. Some people love that, some are put off by it, that's really how simple it is.
Certainly the first signs are promising there are more of the latter now than the former, but the USA is genuinely polarised 50/50 give or take a few percent, and where those percent fall (ie in which swing states) is critical - it would be absurd to think Trump has no chance anymore. Especially, and no apologies for harping on it, given the risk his allies do not certify election results they do not like.
His decline is also speeding up, as Biden’s did. He seems to have aged five years in one
He will get battered in the debates. Harris simply has to do what Trump did to Biden: stand back, stay quiet, and let Trump explode the grenade in his hand
The whole film is worth watching. A zillion trash films made at the time, an almost accidentally brilliant film. Fully equal, in its way, to Terminator.
Mr. 43, "Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do."
Then
"Tell me where I'm wrong?"
The Batley Grammar School teacher in hiding for his life might disagree with your contention that Muslims are not imposing their cultural norms on him.
Thank you MD for introducing me to this which I hadn't heard before. The story as written in this Guardian article is well worth reading
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Liz Truss. She sends site members into meltdowns and illicits cruel, puerile jibes that they would (and do) condemn as misogyny if they were directed at Angela Rayner. She even gets brought into entirely unrelated topics.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Fair enough. You're a liberal, well-educated, well-integrated and moderate Muslim. But first and foremost a patriotic Briton.
But, do you think you're representative? Don't you think he has a point that not everyone else is, and this is a bit of a problem?
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Islam and its types, and the cultures and countries of origin.
Hint, it's because Trump is really weird. Even if people don't think he's a monster, his oddity is part of his charisma, he does not speak or act in a regular way and it can be captivating. Some people love that, some are put off by it, that's really how simple it is.
Certainly the first signs are promising there are more of the latter now than the former, but the USA is genuinely polarised 50/50 give or take a few percent, and where those percent fall (ie in which swing states) is critical - it would be absurd to think Trump has no chance anymore. Especially, and no apologies for harping on it, given the risk his allies do not certify election results they do not like.
His decline is also speeding up, as Biden’s did. He seems to have aged five years in one
He will get battered in the debates. Harris simply has to do what Trump did to Biden: stand back, stay quiet, and let Trump explode the grenade in his hand
I certainly agree with the 2nd para. The format for the last debate should have been a gift for Biden (no audience, silenced microphones when not speaking etc), yet it backfired when Biden rather than Trump became incoherent. Trump didn't need to interrupt and disrupt. Let the reverse happen next time should be Harris's plan I think.
Mr. 43, "Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do."
Then
"Tell me where I'm wrong?"
The Batley Grammar School teacher in hiding for his life might disagree with your contention that Muslims are not imposing their cultural norms on him.
Thank you MD for introducing me to this which I hadn't heard before. The story as written in this Guardian article is well worth reading
Mr. 43, "Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do."
Then
"Tell me where I'm wrong?"
The Batley Grammar School teacher in hiding for his life might disagree with your contention that Muslims are not imposing their cultural norms on him.
Thank you MD for introducing me to this which I hadn't heard before. The story as written in this Guardian article is well worth reading
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Liz Truss. She sends site members into meltdowns and illicits cruel, puerile jibes that they would (and do) condemn as misogyny if they were directed at Angela Rayner. She even gets brought into entirely unrelated topics.
Yes, possibly. I thought of including her! But she seems a bit too peripheral to count, and let’s face it she WAS a political disaster that justifies mocking hilarity
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
Another debate victory Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign Fire Vance Fire himself Another assassination attempt. A social media storm/riot Dirt on his opponents Economic crash
SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
Well it would be a strict literal reading…
Perhaps she could self-identify as male just to wind them up?
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Perhaps the quietness of your taste in shoes and your legendary modesty has really, really upset him?
Something to consider, though. My father (Think New York liberal atheist of Jewish background, ACLU etc) was a bit startled by the funkier Friends Of Hooky, when he visited me at Uni (UCL in the 90s). One of them was doing the full performance speech in the street outside the Union. To me it was street theatre - but to my father it was someone railing, quite violently, against the liberal order that he thought was the common, agreed basis of society.
And round we go on the eternal circle of toleration for intolerance. We’ll probably answer that one just after we fix the “who Guards the Guardians problem”.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
Iain Dale can write some good short pieces. His books always seem like butter spread thin…
Another debate victory Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign Fire Vance Fire himself Another assassination attempt. A social media storm/riot Dirt on his opponents Economic crash
SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
Nah, only Thomas would rule that way, depending on if he had received a suitable 'gift' from one of his extremely generous friends he is always forgetting to register.
Such a poor memory and inability to understand simple concepts of judicial ethics, it's amazing all the other Justices apparently manage it.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
I see his polemic on the riots posted yesterday has disappeared. Presumably in the hands of the DPP?
Do you think he should be prosecuted for calmly saying things that you don't approve of?
Hint, it's because Trump is really weird. Even if people don't think he's a monster, his oddity is part of his charisma, he does not speak or act in a regular way and it can be captivating. Some people love that, some are put off by it, that's really how simple it is.
Certainly the first signs are promising there are more of the latter now than the former, but the USA is genuinely polarised 50/50 give or take a few percent, and where those percent fall (ie in which swing states) is critical - it would be absurd to think Trump has no chance anymore. Especially, and no apologies for harping on it, given the risk his allies do not certify election results they do not like.
His decline is also speeding up, as Biden’s did. He seems to have aged five years in one
He will get battered in the debates. Harris simply has to do what Trump did to Biden: stand back, stay quiet, and let Trump explode the grenade in his hand
I hope so. But he's like teflon - I get there really are still undecideds and waverers in america hard as that is to believe, and people who are just so disengaged from politics they miss most things, but whilst he's gotten worse is he that much worse than what they all already know?
Counterpoint, as you note with Biden people always knew he was past his best, but he seemed to rapidly decline enough that it could not be ignored any longer. So it is possible there is a breaking point for Trump, who is under tremendous stress (had his other trials happened he might have not been able to cope).
If she ever makes it to the UK she'll be walking around with the equivalent of FART written on her forehead.
At least the Republicans have kept the same leader for a while. Equivalent Tory fangirl would need a very big forehead to have Boris, Truss, Sunak tattooed and crossed out plus space to fit in the next one.
In those circs, for the full grammatical correctness and not-quite-hidden meaning Boris Johnson needs an appropriate apostrophe,
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
To be clear, I don't think it likely. Perhaps with the one scenario where Republican private polling shows he is losing well outside any margin of error they could call a stolen election. In that instance, it would be Trump's MO to run away from a hiding by the voters.
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Fair enough. You're a liberal, well-educated, well-integrated and moderate Muslim. But first and foremost a patriotic Briton.
But, do you think you're representative? Don't you think he has a point that not everyone else is, and this is a bit of a problem?
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Islam and its types, and the cultures and countries of origin.
What do you think?
I've seen rioters attaking passers-by, clashing with police, setting fire to buildings. They've professed to be Christians.
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Christianity and its types.
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
PB Brains Trust: any finance whizzes know what to do about Royal Mail shares and the take over? I have a handful of £100s or so from when it was privatised. I object to the takeover of our ancient postal services by a foreign owner. It seems shareholders cannot vote against they can only either vote to accept or do nothing.
Do nothing seems to be the only way to say 'I don't want it sold'.
If you do nothing though then it seems from some stuff I've seen on Redit that you can end up with a bunch of delisted shares you can't sell.
What to do?
With takeovers, the issue is whether there are sufficient acceptances. So not confirming your acceptance is functionally the same as "voting against".
Normally with a takeover, you need acceptances from holders of 90% of the shares, then you squeeze out the others (this is just a compulsory purchase of the rest - those shareholders don't lose out financially compared to the rest albeit they may personally have preferred not to sell).
In this case, I think the acquirer has left open the possibility of going for a scheme of arrangement, which is a slightly different approach with a lower (75%) threshold.
If you're against, then just sit tight - the deal will either collapse or it won't and you'll get the same as everyone who accepted. There isn't a genuine risk of being prejudiced as a hold-out minority as the legal protections on that sort of thing are strong - and the acquirer just wants to get hold of all shares at the offer price, not to dick about trying to screw over tiny investors for the sake of pennies.
I'd not worry too much about this. If the key institutional investors agree it, this will happen, and if not it won't. People with a handful of shares here and there are vanishingly unlikely to be decisive, but if you want to object then doing nothing is the way to do it (unless you know the Chairman of the Pru well enough to beg him or her to vote against).
Rasmussen is a pollster I take note of unlike Trafalgar....
It called Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004- but I do think that was also helped my a timely intervention by Osama the Sunday before polling...
From what I remember the polls in 2004 were actually all fairly accurate (in general). I think most of them had Bush slightly ahead (though most were MOE, but then the margin was only circa 2 points in the end I believe).
Looking back there was quite a lot of wishcasting in 2004. I seem to remember a lot of people being convinced Bush wouldn't win simply because it was Bush. I think there is some of that around this time, too, though I think Harris at the moment should be the marginal favourite.
This time it’s still on a knife edge - because of the EC, she needs to be a number of points clear in the overall nation vote to be in front.
Unless we get a really differential turnout.
Walz was a particularly good pick in several ways - one is that unlike Shapiro, he won’t upset the left hand side of the Democrat base (Gaza)
The left figure largely in the volunteer and low level party - which is where the turnout engine is.
Note that Hillary managed to piss off exactly that group.
Trump's EC college advantage looks smaller this time than last time. The 538 polling averages have Harris 2% ahead nationally, and if I'm reading right Pennsylvania as the tipping point state where Harris is 0.9% ahead. So on that basis Trump has a 1.1% EC advantage, and a Harris national lead over 1.1% could be enough to win.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Fair enough. You're a liberal, well-educated, well-integrated and moderate Muslim. But first and foremost a patriotic Briton.
But, do you think you're representative? Don't you think he has a point that not everyone else is, and this is a bit of a problem?
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Islam and its types, and the cultures and countries of origin.
What do you think?
I've seen rioters attaking passers-by, clashing with police, setting fire to buildings. They've professed to be Christians.
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Christianity and its types.
Indeed
I can’t recall a creed that hasn’t been used to justify and advocate the most extreme violence.
A friend once suggested I become a Pastifarian. I pointed out that within a couple of hundred years, people will be slaughtering each other over penne vs tagliatelle.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
To be clear, I don't think it likely. Perhaps with the one scenario where Republican private polling shows he is losing well outside any margin of error they could call a stolen election. In that instance, it would be Trump's MO to run away from a hiding by the voters.
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
That, or the Ernie Saunders defence.
Don't forget, being President was a big money spinner for him too. All those government events held at Trump's hotel chains.
Having watched Harris' speech last night, it was a bit meh. She's not a great speaker - indeed, I would compare her to Clinton. She dealt with a heckler pretty effectively but she was rather cerebral and slow paced.
But it didn't matter.
Because Walz had warmed the crowd up and they were cheering everything anyway as a result.
That one-two punch could be critical if she's to go on to win, and it's good to see how she was carefully reminding everyone that they have a long way to go.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
Zamoyski’s NAPOLEON
👍
Fantastic book
I’ve read two magnificent political/historical biographies in the last few years
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
What about the biography of @Leon on the shelf above? Any good?
Rasmussen is a pollster I take note of unlike Trafalgar....
It called Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004- but I do think that was also helped my a timely intervention by Osama the Sunday before polling...
From what I remember the polls in 2004 were actually all fairly accurate (in general). I think most of them had Bush slightly ahead (though most were MOE, but then the margin was only circa 2 points in the end I believe).
Looking back there was quite a lot of wishcasting in 2004. I seem to remember a lot of people being convinced Bush wouldn't win simply because it was Bush. I think there is some of that around this time, too, though I think Harris at the moment should be the marginal favourite.
This time it’s still on a knife edge - because of the EC, she needs to be a number of points clear in the overall nation vote to be in front.
Unless we get a really differential turnout.
Walz was a particularly good pick in several ways - one is that unlike Shapiro, he won’t upset the left hand side of the Democrat base (Gaza)
The left figure largely in the volunteer and low level party - which is where the turnout engine is.
Note that Hillary managed to piss off exactly that group.
Trump's EC college advantage looks smaller this time than last time. The 538 polling averages have Harris 2% ahead nationally, and if I'm reading right Pennsylvania as the tipping point state where Harris is 0.9% ahead. So on that basis Trump has a 1.1% EC advantage, and a Harris national lead over 1.1% could be enough to win.
It feels like they've been at close to 50/50 for so long, including in the Senate, it can produce real dissonance to look back at old results, or not even that old, and realise that is not usually the case.
Like, seriously, how bad was Mondale in 1984 for the percentage to be 59/41to Reagan?! 525-13 in the Electoral College! And yet the Republicans lost seats in the Senate up that year.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
What about the biography of @Leon on the shelf above? Any good?
Ah, so that's why he recommended it the other day.
PB Brains Trust: any finance whizzes know what to do about Royal Mail shares and the take over? I have a handful of £100s or so from when it was privatised. I object to the takeover of our ancient postal services by a foreign owner. It seems shareholders cannot vote against they can only either vote to accept or do nothing.
Do nothing seems to be the only way to say 'I don't want it sold'.
If you do nothing though then it seems from some stuff I've seen on Redit that you can end up with a bunch of delisted shares you can't sell.
What to do?
With takeovers, the issue is whether there are sufficient acceptances. So not confirming your acceptance is functionally the same as "voting against".
Normally with a takeover, you need acceptances from holders of 90% of the shares, then you squeeze out the others (this is just a compulsory purchase of the rest - those shareholders don't lose out financially compared to the rest albeit they may personally have preferred not to sell).
In this case, I think the acquirer has left open the possibility of going for a scheme of arrangement, which is a slightly different approach with a lower (75%) threshold.
If you're against, then just sit tight - the deal will either collapse or it won't and you'll get the same as everyone who accepted. There isn't a genuine risk of being prejudiced as a hold-out minority as the legal protections on that sort of thing are strong - and the acquirer just wants to get hold of all shares at the offer price, not to dick about trying to screw over tiny investors for the sake of pennies.
I'd not worry too much about this. If the key institutional investors agree it, this will happen, and if not it won't. People with a handful of shares here and there are vanishingly unlikely to be decisive, but if you want to object then doing nothing is the way to do it (unless you know the Chairman of the Pru well enough to beg him or her to vote against).
Thanks. V useful.
I know my 'vote' is irrelevant to be honest, as is everyone else's save for the big institutional boys.
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It really is time to emigrate, mate. Fuck this stupid country
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
What about the biography of Leon on the shelf above? Any good?
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
You have a book on "Leon"!
I swear that was accidental, but as Carnyx notes, Leon is a fan of that book!
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
Again I would hope SKS is too savvy than to use his first term to start legislating things like this. You only need to look north of the border to see how much trouble the SNP are in because they focused on these issues rather than bread and butter items (this is laying aside the sinister nature of proposals like this).
The electorate will I think take a very dim view of Labour if they start focusing on topics like these rather than NHS reform, asylum/immigration reform, housebuilding/growth, etc.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
@bondegezou is not even a “useful idiot”. He’s not that smart. He’s a “useful drooling cretin”
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
The main problem with this debate is that people have different ideas of what a "lab leak" looks like, ranging from a killer virus developed by the Chinese to someone working at the lab contracting it elsewhere and bringing it back.
Hint, it's because Trump is really weird. Even if people don't think he's a monster, his oddity is part of his charisma, he does not speak or act in a regular way and it can be captivating. Some people love that, some are put off by it, that's really how simple it is.
Certainly the first signs are promising there are more of the latter now than the former, but the USA is genuinely polarised 50/50 give or take a few percent, and where those percent fall (ie in which swing states) is critical - it would be absurd to think Trump has no chance anymore. Especially, and no apologies for harping on it, given the risk his allies do not certify election results they do not like.
His decline is also speeding up, as Biden’s did. He seems to have aged five years in one
He will get battered in the debates. Harris simply has to do what Trump did to Biden: stand back, stay quiet, and let Trump explode the grenade in his hand
I hope so. But he's like teflon - I get there really are still undecideds and waverers in america hard as that is to believe, and people who are just so disengaged from politics they miss most things, but whilst he's gotten worse is he that much worse than what they all already know?
Counterpoint, as you note with Biden people always knew he was past his best, but he seemed to rapidly decline enough that it could not be ignored any longer. So it is possible there is a breaking point for Trump, who is under tremendous stress (had his other trials happened he might have not been able to cope).
In the clips from his recent press conference rantings he looks old.
The visual contrast of him vs Harris will be quite strong I think in the debate.
Nixon famously of course was thought to have won his JFK debate by the radio listeners.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It really is time to emigrate, mate. Fuck this stupid country
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
I know, the tendency for censorship and authoritarianism by Labour has already started and it's only been a month. My conscience is clear, I didn't vote for them yet I will have to deal with the consequences.
While the US is an imperfect society, the first amendment gives them a truly iron clad right to free expression. Europeans just seem to not understand how sinister this kind of censorship is and "liberal" people who want to silence their opponents cheer this stuff on without realising they are signing their own death warrants.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
The horrible nature of this idea is the fact the government wants to censor opinions or statements that are “legal but harmful”
What is that if not totalitarian denial of free speech? “Ok what you said is legal but we don’t like it so we’re going to make it illegal anyway, and this can apply to anything we like”
That’s it right there. The end of free speech. Weep for England
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
As I understand the approach being taken, it isn't direct regulation. The social media platforms themselves would need to maintain effective policies to deal with complaints about harmful content etc. It's only if they don't have such a policy or clearly aren't operating it in practice that the regulator comes into play. That means the regulator would not be adjudicating on whether a particular thing should be taken down etc - which they don't have resource to do, quite apart from the "ministry of truth" suggestion.
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
Do you believe the official Chinese death toll due to Covid of only 5,300? (Compare UK: 232,000)
I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Fair enough. You're a liberal, well-educated, well-integrated and moderate Muslim. But first and foremost a patriotic Briton.
But, do you think you're representative? Don't you think he has a point that not everyone else is, and this is a bit of a problem?
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Islam and its types, and the cultures and countries of origin.
What do you think?
I think your last sentence nails it.
The UK is thankfully ahead of the global curve in terms of liberalism and tolerance. So when we import small-ish numbers of people from cultures with less tolerant views, they (or their children) naturally tend towards being more 'British' in their outlook (i.e. more liberal and tolerant). When you import people en masse as we have in the last few years, they tend to keep their culture and form parallel communities, and the shift towards tolerance doesn't happen.
This is a cultural problem, bringing to the country people from cultures that are deeply conservative, religious, anti-LGBT, anti other religions, etc. Without adequate provision for integrating those cultures. That is very bad news if you are, say, Jewish, female, or queer. The protests outside the Anderton Park school in Birmingham were a big wake up call for me. As were the anti semitic signs and chants at protests after October 7th last year.
Of course, we have our own problems with home grown bigots. But ultimately, if we're going to import people from countries with less liberal and tolerant cultures than our own, we need to do it in such a way and in such numbers as to promote integration and values that track towards British norms.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
Do you believe the official Chinese death toll due to Covid of only 5,300? (Compare UK: 232,000)
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Liz Truss. She sends site members into meltdowns and illicits cruel, puerile jibes that they would (and do) condemn as misogyny if they were directed at Angela Rayner. She even gets brought into entirely unrelated topics.
Yes, possibly. I thought of including her! But she seems a bit too peripheral to count, and let’s face it she WAS a political disaster that justifies mocking hilarity
Meh. You didn't want people to bring up your 'surprise on the upside' prediction. At any rate, she surprised me on the upside, so it was partly true.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
Or, was. The latest NYT/Siena College poll, out today, has Harris up by 4 in Pennsylvania.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
As I understand the approach being taken, it isn't direct regulation. The social media platforms themselves would need to maintain effective policies to deal with complaints about harmful content etc. It's only if they don't have such a policy or clearly aren't operating it in practice that the regulator comes into play. That means the regulator would not be adjudicating on whether a particular thing should be taken down etc - which they don't have resource to do, quite apart from the "ministry of truth" suggestion.
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
Asking private companies to regulate free speech is no better than the government doing it.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It really is time to emigrate, mate. Fuck this stupid country
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
I know, the tendency for censorship and authoritarianism by Labour has already started and it's only been a month. My conscience is clear, I didn't vote for them yet I will have to deal with the consequences.
While the US is an imperfect society, the first amendment gives them a truly iron clad right to free expression. Europeans just seem to not understand how sinister this kind of censorship is and "liberal" people who want to silence their opponents cheer this stuff on without realising they are signing their own death warrants.
The disastrous governance of the UK has got so bad that I would seriously prefer to be French or American. French because at least they have a beautiful country, for all their problems; American because they have those constitutional freedoms, as you say
I will again spend the large majority of this year outside the UK. Next year it will be close to 95%. I will come back to see friends and fam, but I’m gone
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Clocks going back in October?
Cash Planning regulations Cycle lanes Pissapple on pizzas
Comments
Shapiro had various negative issues with the base.
Walk has nearly no negatives, with a wide range of groups. That he was endorsed by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups is a particular example.
OK, you haven't read the book.
https://arstechnica.com/culture/2024/08/in-world-first-russian-chess-player-poisons-rivals-board-with-mercury/
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
I rather suspect it's a fake. The video is cut in a way that suggests it, and it's obviously the sort of stunt wannabee "influencers" pull for clicks and follows.
The polls. Last time they underestimated his vote. How can we be sure they aren't doing it again?
Mail-in ballots. Because of Covid they dominated in 2020 and it favoured the Dems. This time the in-person proportion will be higher. Will that favour Trump?
Shenanigans. We've seen the lengths he's prepared to go to to be declared the winner of an election he's lost. He now not only owns the GOP, he has the SC in his pocket. How can we price in the chances of him being able to turn defeat into victory via corruption, intimidation and judicial interference?
Turnout. Trump's support is passionate. Before Biden pulled out the same wasn't true of the Dems. Harris has changed this. She's energized the base and certain key demographics. But can she hold and build on this enthusiasm all the way to Nov?
Gender. It's harder for women in politics. They have things to overcome that men don't. What is deemed strong in a man is seen as bossy in a woman. A man's cutting humour is a woman's bitchiness. Etc etc. A first ever female president would be a massive deal. Are they ready to do it?
It's because of these type of thoughts that I have Harris as a clear (60/40) favourite rather than an overwhelming (80/20) one.
So projections, this far out, are unusually worthwhile.
Aside from the different targets, it was essentially what the same people do in Faliraki and Magaluf every August.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless
you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
https://x.com/flywithkamala/status/1822114149020692485
“F…ing Nazi!” - a 🇷🇺 pensioner (87) gets his arm broken over speaking out against “wagnerites”.
https://x.com/olex_scherba/status/1822153855540314218
As an aside, his dad was executed by Stalin.
I thought he a better Co commentator than wrestler. He was fabulous with mean Gene.
One of those who saw VKM for the piece of crap he truly is.
Well, it might, but Pennsylvania is almost a must-win for Harris. Lose that State and there is still a path to victory, but it is very narrow.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
https://youtu.be/ylnZ22mJuBw?si=Kre5uJtxPz7lvXxk
Fiscal conservative; social liberal.
The govt protecting us from what it seems to be fake news.
Nothing could go wrong
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/09/tech-giants-forced-ban-fake-news-labour/
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
Trump
Ukraine
Boris (in the past)
Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last)
Elon Musk
Me (if I’m on really really good form)
There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyjl912z7po
Hint, it's because Trump is really weird. Even if people don't think he's a monster, his oddity is part of his charisma, he does not speak or act in a regular way and it can be captivating. Some people love that, some are put off by it, that's really how simple it is.
Certainly the first signs are promising there are more of the latter now than the former, but the USA is genuinely polarised 50/50 give or take a few percent, and where those percent fall (ie in which swing states) is critical - it would be absurd to think Trump has no chance anymore. Especially, and no apologies for harping on it, given the risk his allies do not certify election results they do not like.
And returned to the WWE.
I'll wait to see what actually gets brought to the table. Though make no mistake, I am concerned that Labour's authoritarian tendencies are already starting to show.
Do nothing seems to be the only way to say 'I don't want it sold'.
If you do nothing though then it seems from some stuff I've seen on Redit that you can end up with a bunch of delisted shares you can't sell.
What to do?
She’s one of the last people in the world I would think would be remotely interested in anything political.
If he’s having this effect on people a million miles away from the US in most respects then he could be the best decision Harris has made.
He will get battered in the debates. Harris simply has to do what Trump did to Biden: stand back, stay quiet, and let Trump explode the grenade in his hand
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/31/batley-school-what-teacher-in-hiding-can-tell-us-about-our-failure-to-tackle-intolerance
But, do you think you're representative? Don't you think he has a point that not everyone else is, and this is a bit of a problem?
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Islam and its types, and the cultures and countries of origin.
What do you think?
You hadn’t heard of the teacher in Batley? One of the biggest stories in Britain’s racial/migration debate in the last decade?
You’re not a particularly intelligent man, but that’s not your fault. But total ignorance IS your fault. You have eyes than can read
Read more
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me.
Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
Perhaps she could self-identify as male just to wind them up?
Something to consider, though. My father (Think New York liberal atheist of Jewish background, ACLU etc) was a bit startled by the funkier Friends Of Hooky, when he visited me at Uni (UCL in the 90s). One of them was doing the full performance speech in the street outside the Union. To me it was street theatre - but to my father it was someone railing, quite violently, against the liberal order that he thought was the common, agreed basis of society.
And round we go on the eternal circle of toleration for intolerance. We’ll probably answer that one just after we fix the “who Guards the Guardians problem”.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Such a poor memory and inability to understand simple concepts of judicial ethics, it's amazing all the other Justices apparently manage it.
Counterpoint, as you note with Biden people always knew he was past his best, but he seemed to rapidly decline enough that it could not be ignored any longer. So it is possible there is a breaking point for Trump, who is under tremendous stress (had his other trials happened he might have not been able to cope).
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
That, or the Ernie Saunders defence.
Maybe it comes down to nuances of interpretations of Christianity and its types.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
Normally with a takeover, you need acceptances from holders of 90% of the shares, then you squeeze out the others (this is just a compulsory purchase of the rest - those shareholders don't lose out financially compared to the rest albeit they may personally have preferred not to sell).
In this case, I think the acquirer has left open the possibility of going for a scheme of arrangement, which is a slightly different approach with a lower (75%) threshold.
If you're against, then just sit tight - the deal will either collapse or it won't and you'll get the same as everyone who accepted. There isn't a genuine risk of being prejudiced as a hold-out minority as the legal protections on that sort of thing are strong - and the acquirer just wants to get hold of all shares at the offer price, not to dick about trying to screw over tiny investors for the sake of pennies.
I'd not worry too much about this. If the key institutional investors agree it, this will happen, and if not it won't. People with a handful of shares here and there are vanishingly unlikely to be decisive, but if you want to object then doing nothing is the way to do it (unless you know the Chairman of the Pru well enough to beg him or her to vote against).
I can’t recall a creed that hasn’t been used to justify and advocate the most extreme violence.
A friend once suggested I become a Pastifarian. I pointed out that within a couple of hundred years, people will be slaughtering each other over penne vs tagliatelle.
Having watched Harris' speech last night, it was a bit meh. She's not a great speaker - indeed, I would compare her to Clinton. She dealt with a heckler pretty effectively but she was rather cerebral and slow paced.
But it didn't matter.
Because Walz had warmed the crowd up and they were cheering everything anyway as a result.
That one-two punch could be critical if she's to go on to win, and it's good to see how she was carefully reminding everyone that they have a long way to go.
👍
Fantastic book
I’ve read two magnificent political/historical biographies in the last few years
That one, and BOLIVAR by Marie Arana
Like, seriously, how bad was Mondale in 1984 for the percentage to be 59/41to Reagan?! 525-13 in the Electoral College! And yet the Republicans lost seats in the Senate up that year.
Edit: and today I now see!
I know my 'vote' is irrelevant to be honest, as is everyone else's save for the big institutional boys.
But I'd like to make my little 'protest' anyway.
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
The electorate will I think take a very dim view of Labour if they start focusing on topics like these rather than NHS reform, asylum/immigration reform, housebuilding/growth, etc.
The visual contrast of him vs Harris will be quite strong I think in the debate.
Nixon famously of course was thought to have won his JFK debate by the radio listeners.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
While the US is an imperfect society, the first amendment gives them a truly iron clad right to free expression. Europeans just seem to not understand how sinister this kind of censorship is and "liberal" people who want to silence their opponents cheer this stuff on without realising they are signing their own death warrants.
What is that if not totalitarian denial of free speech? “Ok what you said is legal but we don’t like it so we’re going to make it illegal anyway, and this can apply to anything we like”
That’s it right there. The end of free speech. Weep for England
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
The UK is thankfully ahead of the global curve in terms of liberalism and tolerance. So when we import small-ish numbers of people from cultures with less tolerant views, they (or their children) naturally tend towards being more 'British' in their outlook (i.e. more liberal and tolerant). When you import people en masse as we have in the last few years, they tend to keep their culture and form parallel communities, and the shift towards tolerance doesn't happen.
This is a cultural problem, bringing to the country people from cultures that are deeply conservative, religious, anti-LGBT, anti other religions, etc. Without adequate provision for integrating those cultures. That is very bad news if you are, say, Jewish, female, or queer. The protests outside the Anderton Park school in Birmingham were a big wake up call for me. As were the anti semitic signs and chants at protests after October 7th last year.
Of course, we have our own problems with home grown bigots. But ultimately, if we're going to import people from countries with less liberal and tolerant cultures than our own, we need to do it in such a way and in such numbers as to promote integration and values that track towards British norms.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12615-faulty-pipe-blamed-for-uk-foot-and-mouth-outbreak/
I will again spend the large majority of this year outside the UK. Next year it will be close to 95%. I will come back to see friends and fam, but I’m gone
Planning regulations
Cycle lanes
Pissapple on pizzas