A 12 week abortion limit proposed for Nebraska is the same as in Germany so hardly a major outlier as far as I am concerned. The issue will also drive evengelical turnout for Republicans and Trump and some conservative Roman Catholic turnout for them, including pro life Hispanics
That's what you think will happen Hyufd. Catch is, that's not what the data says. Even in Montana they can't get tighter abortion laws past the citizens.
What appears to have happened is that anti-abortion activists thought because they were noisy and well-organised and their opponents didn't seem that bothered, they were a majority of the country. Turns out this was a serious miscalculation. They are a minority, and while they are a significant minority everywhere they have asked the question they've been knocked back by the majority. Who also, as an aside, seem to then vote Blue as a further FU to the party supporting abortion restrictions.
For anti abortion activists even just higher restrictions in a few southern states is better than the US wide abortion on demand effectively there was with Roe v Wade
Nope. You don't live here. They don't want "even just higher restrictions", they're nutters who think that a single cell is a human being. No exceptions for rape or anything.
The vast majority see them as nutters and are voting accordingly.
Roe was settled until Trump came along. Even Biden had a fighting chance in November because of Dobbs. What we've seen in Kansas et al shows this. I'd be seriously looking at odds of Harris taking Florida.
The determination of Republicans to get Roe overturned long predates Trump being involved with the party. It’s been a project of several decades. It’s not even an issue that the man himself particularly cares about, he was your typical New York liberal for most of his life after all, with a long history of women coming and going.
Go back to 2016 though, and there were lots of Republicans making the point that while Trump wasn’t exactly everyone’s cup of tea among many Christian communities, the one thing he could offer them was the opportunity to keep up the Roe fight with Surpreme Court nominations.
What a horrible story. Young girl stabbed in the street by a man she didn’t know, in front of her mother.
A serious drugs or mental health problem?
“A man has been charged with attempted murder after an 11-year-old girl was stabbed in Leicester Square.
“The Metropolitan Police said its officers went to the scene of a stabbing in London on Monday where the girl was found with stab wounds.
“She was taken to hospital where her injuries, while serious, were assessed as non-life threatening, the force said.
“Ioan Pintaru, 32, of no fixed address, was charged with attempted murder and possession of a bladed article.
“It was initially believed that the girl’s mother, a 34-year-old woman, was also hurt however it was later confirmed that blood from her daughter’s injuries had been mistaken for injuries of her own.
“He was remanded in custody to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday morning.”
I've suggested before that some Eastern European countries may have encouraged their 'problem people' to make a one way trip to the UK.
Donald Trump made the same charge to Elon Musk in his TwiX interview overnight, that Central American countries were exporting their criminals and even unproductive people to the United States.
Why wouldn't they - criminals, disabled, homeless, drug addicts, unemployables - the people who cause most societal problems and are a drain on government resources.
It is after all what this country did in transporting its problem people to the early American and Australian colonies.
Criminals, disabled, homeless, drug addicts, unemployables etc are normally too poor or too weak to be able to migrate without someone supporting them to do so.
Migration increases as people become wealthier and more self-sufficient and able to pay to move.
Hence the paradox that increased economic development increases emigration.
Not Eastern European Roma. They fled - despite being poor and often uneducated - precisely because they faced intense discrimination at home. A lot went to Italy, I believe. Quite a lot to the UK
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
A 12 week abortion limit proposed for Nebraska is the same as in Germany so hardly a major outlier as far as I am concerned. The issue will also drive evengelical turnout for Republicans and Trump and some conservative Roman Catholic turnout for them, including pro life Hispanics
That's what you think will happen Hyufd. Catch is, that's not what the data says. Even in Montana they can't get tighter abortion laws past the citizens.
What appears to have happened is that anti-abortion activists thought because they were noisy and well-organised and their opponents didn't seem that bothered, they were a majority of the country. Turns out this was a serious miscalculation. They are a minority, and while they are a significant minority everywhere they have asked the question they've been knocked back by the majority. Who also, as an aside, seem to then vote Blue as a further FU to the party supporting abortion restrictions.
For anti abortion activists even just higher restrictions in a few southern states is better than the US wide abortion on demand effectively there was with Roe v Wade
Nope. You don't live here. They don't want "even just higher restrictions", they're nutters who think that a single cell is a human being. No exceptions for rape or anything.
The vast majority see them as nutters and are voting accordingly.
Roe was settled until Trump came along. Even Biden had a fighting chance in November because of Dobbs. What we've seen in Kansas et al shows this. I'd be seriously looking at odds of Harris taking Florida.
The determination of Republicans to get Roe overturned long predates Trump being involved with the party. It’s been a project of several decades. It’s not even an issue that the man himself particularly cares about, he was your typical New York liberal for most of his life after all, with a long history of women coming and going.
Go back to 2016 though, and there were lots of Republicans making the point that while Trump wasn’t exactly everyone’s cup of tea among many Christian communities, the one thing he could offer them was the opportunity to keep up the Roe fight with Surpreme Court nominations.
Genuine question: is a "typical New York liberal" a racist arsehole?
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
What a horrible story. Young girl stabbed in the street by a man she didn’t know, in front of her mother.
A serious drugs or mental health problem?
“A man has been charged with attempted murder after an 11-year-old girl was stabbed in Leicester Square.
“The Metropolitan Police said its officers went to the scene of a stabbing in London on Monday where the girl was found with stab wounds.
“She was taken to hospital where her injuries, while serious, were assessed as non-life threatening, the force said.
“Ioan Pintaru, 32, of no fixed address, was charged with attempted murder and possession of a bladed article.
“It was initially believed that the girl’s mother, a 34-year-old woman, was also hurt however it was later confirmed that blood from her daughter’s injuries had been mistaken for injuries of her own.
“He was remanded in custody to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday morning.”
I've suggested before that some Eastern European countries may have encouraged their 'problem people' to make a one way trip to the UK.
Donald Trump made the same charge to Elon Musk in his TwiX interview overnight, that Central American countries were exporting their criminals and even unproductive people to the United States.
Why wouldn't they - criminals, disabled, homeless, drug addicts, unemployables - the people who cause most societal problems and are a drain on government resources.
It is after all what this country did in transporting its problem people to the early American and Australian colonies.
Criminals, disabled, homeless, drug addicts, unemployables etc are normally too poor or too weak to be able to migrate without someone supporting them to do so.
Migration increases as people become wealthier and more self-sufficient and able to pay to move.
Hence the paradox that increased economic development increases emigration.
Maybe its not easy to walk through the Darien Gap.
But its not that hard to get on a coach or plane from Eastern Europe to the UK.
Especially if some rough people from the government give you a ticket and a printout on how to claim help when they arrive.
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
It's my all time favourite photo on PB.
Why do all Republican women look like that?
It depends where you’re looking!
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
So I'm looking at an Ofsted monitoring letter which I won't say is generated from selection boxes and auto generated but it would be useful if the paragraphs had consistent kerning between words and all words on a line where actually on the line and some were not 2 to 3 pixels below the rest of it.
I mean if you can't get basic presentation like that right - what hope is there for the rest of it.
In an interesting development, it is being rumoured Biden has offered Maduro amnesty and asylum if he quits the presidency and hands power to the Opposition.
Doubt if Maduro would take it, but it shows how seriously the US sees the situation in Venezuela.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
It's not that difficult if you just remember Trump spouts nonsense all the time.
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
The picture or your breakfast ?
Well, if people want to know about a breakfast of dried fruits and strong tea...
Nice one. Strong tea here and fruit with yoghurt.
For slices of fruit loaf with margarine, and two crumpets, with tea.
Then again, I've already done a three-mile run this morning.
That's alot of carbs !!!!
I've done a five mile cycle ride. Not quite the exertion of a 3 mile run but taxing all the same to a nearly 60 year old !!!!
I did my second sprint triathlon on Sunday, on the same course as my first. I beat my time on all five segments (inc. transitions), so am very happy. This was tempered by the fact a gent about my age, more portly than me, and doing his first-ever triathlon (*), beat me in every segment bar T2.
(*) His neighbour bought an expensive Triathlon/TT bike, used it a couple of times, then realised he did not like the sport. His neighbour offered it to him cheap, so he decided to try a triathlon on it... The sport seems filled with people who spend thousands on kit, then realise they don't actually like the sport.
Not too disimilar to people, like a friend of mine, who took out a years gym membership a few years back only to realise he didn't like going.
I used to have an old Apollo bike and have migrated to a Carrera Crossfire, which is perfect for me.
One of our managers at work does Triathlons. He is extremely fit suffice to say.
I needed a road bike, so I spent £450 on a Halfords Carrera Virtuoso (stop sniggering, @Dura_Ace ... ) . It's been quite good enough for me, and I did 500 miles on it in just three months before the summer holidays came along and I lost free time. Even *if* I get a TT bike, I'll probably keep this one as a winter / wet weather bike.
Cycling had always been a so-so thing for me; I sometimes enjoyed it, but much preferred long-distance walking. That was on my mountain bike; I'm surprised that, relatively late in life, thanks to this bike I've discovered I really like riding a bike. I'm not good at it, but who cares, as long as I enjoy it?
The Russians appear to be unable to defend the region at all, with reports of 1,000 sq km now captured, and 100,000 civilians evacuated. Presumably the latter have their phones confiscated and get sent on a long coach trip to Siberia, to stop them talking to anyone about what’s actually happening in Kursk Oblast.
Fairly serious. Ukraine lost an Abrams, a howitzer, and half a dozen IFVs, along with a load of utility vehicles, according to the guys who keep tally, Though the Russian did also hit their own column.
I suspect they're getting close to the point where they have to decide whether to dig in (and if so where), or manoeuvre back towards the Russian from line. But I'm guessing like everyone else; their operational security is pretty good.
Set against those losses, the Ukrainian Tractor Boys have been at work again, "liberating" abandoned Russian kit, including tanks.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
It's my all time favourite photo on PB.
Why do all Republican women look like that?
It depends where you’re looking!
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
The Kari Lake / Kirsty Noem 'look' seems horribly fake to me.
What a horrible story. Young girl stabbed in the street by a man she didn’t know, in front of her mother.
A serious drugs or mental health problem?
“A man has been charged with attempted murder after an 11-year-old girl was stabbed in Leicester Square.
“The Metropolitan Police said its officers went to the scene of a stabbing in London on Monday where the girl was found with stab wounds.
“She was taken to hospital where her injuries, while serious, were assessed as non-life threatening, the force said.
“Ioan Pintaru, 32, of no fixed address, was charged with attempted murder and possession of a bladed article.
“It was initially believed that the girl’s mother, a 34-year-old woman, was also hurt however it was later confirmed that blood from her daughter’s injuries had been mistaken for injuries of her own.
“He was remanded in custody to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday morning.”
I've suggested before that some Eastern European countries may have encouraged their 'problem people' to make a one way trip to the UK.
Donald Trump made the same charge to Elon Musk in his TwiX interview overnight, that Central American countries were exporting their criminals and even unproductive people to the United States.
Why wouldn't they - criminals, disabled, homeless, drug addicts, unemployables - the people who cause most societal problems and are a drain on government resources.
It is after all what this country did in transporting its problem people to the early American and Australian colonies.
Criminals, disabled, homeless, drug addicts, unemployables etc are normally too poor or too weak to be able to migrate without someone supporting them to do so.
Migration increases as people become wealthier and more self-sufficient and able to pay to move.
Hence the paradox that increased economic development increases emigration.
When freedom of movement opened up, Romanian local police and authorities conducted a campaign of putting “undesirables” on the long distance coaches. “Here’s your ticket and don’t come back”…..
Many were Roma. Which is why many Roma from Romania ended up in the U.K.
It was disgusting and quite brutal - I’ve never understood why the UK government didn’t raise this as a human rights issue.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
It's my all time favourite photo on PB.
Why do all Republican women look like that?
It depends where you’re looking!
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
That’s really funny and sad but, I don’t know about these people any more, what kind of person is still a member of Stop the War? Does it have a serious membership or is it just a few mad people now?
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them." Great quote, very appropriate at this current time.
And that picture is great. I didn't know you could get so many Karens in one place at one time.
One more and they would probably reach critical mass. We all know what happens next...
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
Well the claim was that it was a DDoS attack, which is utterly implausible because it didn't take the rest of X down with it.
Reality is the code is half baked and Musk fired most of the people who know how that code base works - I was surprised they actually got it working so someone did a good job but won't be getting the glory from it.
Very informative piece @ydoethur thank you. If the votes of women end up defeating a hardcore misogynist that would be democracy at its finest. Here's hoping.
The Russians appear to be unable to defend the region at all, with reports of 1,000 sq km now captured, and 100,000 civilians evacuated. Presumably the latter have their phones confiscated and get sent on a long coach trip to Siberia, to stop them talking to anyone about what’s actually happening in Kursk Oblast.
Fairly serious. Ukraine lost an Abrams, a howitzer, and half a dozen IFVs, along with a load of utility vehicles, according to the guys who keep tally, Though the Russian did also hit their own column.
I suspect they're getting close to the point where they have to decide whether to dig in (and if so where), or manoeuvre back towards the Russian from line. But I'm guessing like everyone else; their operational security is pretty good.
Set against those losses, the Ukrainian Tractor Boys have been at work again, "liberating" abandoned Russian kit, including tanks.
Give a man a tank, and he has a tank.
Give a man a tractor, and he can have as many tanks as he wants…
The Russians appear to be unable to defend the region at all, with reports of 1,000 sq km now captured, and 100,000 civilians evacuated. Presumably the latter have their phones confiscated and get sent on a long coach trip to Siberia, to stop them talking to anyone about what’s actually happening in Kursk Oblast.
Fairly serious. Ukraine lost an Abrams, a howitzer, and half a dozen IFVs, along with a load of utility vehicles, according to the guys who keep tally, Though the Russian did also hit their own column.
I suspect they're getting close to the point where they have to decide whether to dig in (and if so where), or manoeuvre back towards the Russian from line. But I'm guessing like everyone else; their operational security is pretty good.
Set against those losses, the Ukrainian Tractor Boys have been at work again, "liberating" abandoned Russian kit, including tanks.
Of course - some abandoned and ready to drive off.
The operation has been a huge (and unpredicted) success so far. But where it goes from here is uncertain.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
I cry b/s on the cyberhack/DDOS claims.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
On topic I'm sure the abortion referendums won't hurt the Dems but I wonder how much you can generalize from 2022. Presumably they helped turn out Dems in what would usually be a relatively low-turnout mid-term, but I guess in a presidential election a lot of those people would have turned out anyhow?
That's a strange thing to say, given that he is in the middle of a number of criminal cases, for all of which afaik NOT being a "flight risk" is a factor in his continued liberty during trial.
All it needs is normal bail restrictions enforced in one of them, and he's inside on remand.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
Yes, that’s a better way of putting it. The power flows up from the States to the Federal government, and down from the States to local counties and cities.
A 12 week abortion limit proposed for Nebraska is the same as in Germany so hardly a major outlier as far as I am concerned. The issue will also drive evengelical turnout for Republicans and Trump and some conservative Roman Catholic turnout for them, including pro life Hispanics
That's what you think will happen Hyufd. Catch is, that's not what the data says. Even in Montana they can't get tighter abortion laws past the citizens.
What appears to have happened is that anti-abortion activists thought because they were noisy and well-organised and their opponents didn't seem that bothered, they were a majority of the country. Turns out this was a serious miscalculation. They are a minority, and while they are a significant minority everywhere they have asked the question they've been knocked back by the majority. Who also, as an aside, seem to then vote Blue as a further FU to the party supporting abortion restrictions.
For anti abortion activists even just higher restrictions in a few southern states is better than the US wide abortion on demand effectively there was with Roe v Wade
Nope. You don't live here. They don't want "even just higher restrictions", they're nutters who think that a single cell is a human being. No exceptions for rape or anything.
The vast majority see them as nutters and are voting accordingly.
Roe was settled until Trump came along. Even Biden had a fighting chance in November because of Dobbs. What we've seen in Kansas et al shows this. I'd be seriously looking at odds of Harris taking Florida.
The determination of Republicans to get Roe overturned long predates Trump being involved with the party. It’s been a project of several decades. It’s not even an issue that the man himself particularly cares about, he was your typical New York liberal for most of his life after all, with a long history of women coming and going.
Go back to 2016 though, and there were lots of Republicans making the point that while Trump wasn’t exactly everyone’s cup of tea among many Christian communities, the one thing he could offer them was the opportunity to keep up the Roe fight with Surpreme Court nominations.
With Trump, everything is transactional.
Mike Pence was Trump's link to the Evangelicals, who oppose abortion. Moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem was designed to bring Jewish voters onside (and Trump complained it didn't). Stacking the Supreme Court has been a Republican project for decades, starting with the lower courts. Likewise tax cuts for billionaires. Practically the only thing Trump believes in are that foreigners in general and China in particular is taking advantage of the USA. This has led to his proudest boast: no new wars.
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
It's my all time favourite photo on PB.
Why do all Republican women look like that?
It depends where you’re looking!
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
Easy.
TwiX is an advertising platform. Not all paid advertising, but still advertising.
That's a strange thing to say, given that he is in the middle of a number of criminal cases, for all of which afaik NOT being a "flight risk" is a factor in his continued liberty during trial.
All it needs is normal bail restrictions enforced in one of them, and he's inside on remand.
Trump often says strange things, usually not to his advantage in the legal process...
In an interesting development, it is being rumoured Biden has offered Maduro amnesty and asylum if he quits the presidency and hands power to the Opposition.
Doubt if Maduro would take it, but it shows how seriously the US sees the situation in Venezuela.
A return to the old ways where tinpot dictators would be offered a sackful of cash and safe harbour abroad, rather than starting a war to kill millions and resolve nothing.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Haley? Kemp? (Although the latter for very much a given value of 'supporting.')
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
I cry b/s on the cyberhack/DDOS claims.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
Twitter's entire setup has been malfunctioning recently, at least for me. Constant issues loading content.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Haley? Kemp? (Although the latter for very much a given value of 'supporting.')
Haley surely is more Owen Smith than Keir Starmer?
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
It's my all time favourite photo on PB.
Why do all Republican women look like that?
It depends where you’re looking!
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
The Kari Lake / Kirsty Noem 'look' seems horribly fake to me.
Isn't this a fashion / "required" "image" thing for the public eye?
People who are 5x need to look as if they are a frozen-in-aspic version of 3x, people who are 7x need to look as if they are a frozen-in-aspic version of 5x? Applies to both sexes - see Trump, but women more?
To paraphrase John Nance Garner, VP from 1933-1941, quoted in Memories of the Great and the Good by Alistair Cooke (I'm not digging it out now): 'I have never seen a man's hair turn orange with so little warning.'
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
Trump 2028?
Unless he's either dead or in jail he'll definitely try the primaries again. And I'm not sure the latter would stop him.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
Corbyn is not the opposite of Trump, he's the horseshoe version of Trump.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
Corbyn is not the opposite of Trump, he's the horseshoe version of Trump.
Or, arguably, Trump is the horseshit version of Corbyn.
Thank you to Mr Eagles for publishing this - and tipping me off about the photo so I delayed having breakfast.
Hope people find it of interest.
It's my all time favourite photo on PB.
Why do all Republican women look like that?
It depends where you’re looking!
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
Easy.
TwiX is an advertising platform. Not all paid advertising, but still advertising.
Adverts are always populated by pretty people.
Ha that’s true. Twitter and Youtube are still media, and media is full of pretty people well turned out.
Most of the young activists and commentators are as likely to see themselves as the next Megyn Kelly, rather than the next Nikki Haley.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
Trump 2028?
Oh god, don't.
Ivana and Don Jr are going to want to keep the grift going.
With a moderately optimistic conclusion. ..Modern experience suggests that British planners have not learnt the mistakes of the past. The most recent attempt at New Town development in Britain, Northstowe, eight kilometers outside Cambridge, has 10,000 homes planned for with government support. Yet its isolated location means that it has no railway stations, shops or GP surgery, so its inhabitants have to drive everywhere.
Yet we know that these failures are optional. The success of the original New Towns of Edinburgh and Bath were not just due to good architectural decisions on the part of the designers, although these certainly helped. They worked because they were in places where people actually wanted to live.
The British government appears to be beginning to accept this fact. It has announced the building of a Cambridge New Town of up to 150,000 new homes directly adjacent to Cambridge’s existing built-up area. The new plans for New Towns specify that most will be urban extensions instead of standalone settlements. And there are places where new settlements could work. Samuel Hughes and Kane Emerson have suggested founding a New Town at Tempsford, where the East Coast Main Line and the new East West Rail line intersect. In their proposal, the development of the New Town would provide money to upgrade the Main Line, allowing the New Town to be a 20 and 40 minute train journey from Cambridge and London respectively. The promise of New Towns can still be realized – if they work with, rather than against, the facts of economic geography...
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
Corbyn is not the opposite of Trump, he's the horseshoe version of Trump.
I've concluded after a modicum of thought that that 'horseshoe' theory doesn't shed much light on anything.
That's a strange thing to say, given that he is in the middle of a number of criminal cases, for all of which afaik NOT being a "flight risk" is a factor in his continued liberty during trial.
All it needs is normal bail restrictions enforced in one of them, and he's inside on remand.
Trump often says strange things, usually not to his advantage in the legal process...
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
Yes, that’s a better way of putting it. The power flows up from the States to the Federal government, and down from the States to local counties and cities.
Tenth Amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
Trump 2028?
Unless he's either dead or in jail he'll definitely try the primaries again. And I'm not sure the latter would stop him.
It's not totally obvious that the former would either. Nothing stopping a dead man tweeting, after all.
And whilst having at least two functional parties in a democracy is clearly a desirable thing, a couple of factors point against a Corbyn death followed by rebirth narrative for the Republicans.
For a start, they're not going to get the necessary tonking in November. Even if they lose, it's likely to be closeish.
The other is the looseness of American party structures. There's no cadre of Men In Grey Suits. If there were, Trump's actions in January 2021 would have ruled him out long ago, and Biden would have been eased out way earlier than he was.
Besides. There may be an uncompromised, non-batso, top Republican out there, but flip knows who.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Could be. In which case - and I know we shouldn't do victim blaming - it will serve them right. Such hypocrisy and cowardice in allowing him back after the outrageous attempt to subvert the 2020 election result.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
Trump 2028?
Unless he's either dead or in jail he'll definitely try the primaries again. And I'm not sure the latter would stop him.
It's not totally obvious that the former would either. Nothing stopping a dead man tweeting, after all.
And whilst having at least two functional parties in a democracy is clearly a desirable thing, a couple of factors point against a Corbyn death followed by rebirth narrative for the Republicans.
For a start, they're not going to get the necessary tonking in November. Even if they lose, it's likely to be closeish.
The other is the looseness of American party structures. There's no cadre of Men In Grey Suits. If there were, Trump's actions in January 2021 would have ruled him out long ago, and Biden would have been eased out way earlier than he was.
Besides. There may be an uncompromised, non-batso, top Republican out there, but flip knows who.
Romney or Cheney.
Or maybe some quiet old skool GOP governor we have not heard of.
In a sane world...
But I suspect the MAGA will just put Vance in for 2028 if Trump is somehow out of the picture. Or possible Ivenka or one of the other family. It is a cult and, like NKorea, the whacko worship of a deeply flawed human being can be passed onto the next generation.
But my friends we are getting way way ahead of ourselves.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
If there's one thing that people should have learnt its that making long term political predictions is near pointless.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Walz will be too old in 2032?
68.
A veritable spring chicken.
Also they should be able to upload his brain around 2028 so the version of him they run for president will only be 64.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
The MAGA cult will claim the election was stolen. There will be an attempt at Jan 6 Part Deux.
The thing to understand is how thoroughly the lower levels of the GOP have been taken over
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
The comparison isn’t in the policies. It is in the populism and projection onto The Leader of The Cult’s beliefs.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
The comparison isn’t in the policies. It is in the populism and projection onto The Leader of The Cult’s beliefs.
Indeed.
Although there's more similarities in many policies, such as a dislike of NATO and a fondness of Russia, than either wants to admit.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Those 'morons' would be absolutely correct, and it is an interesting fact. If you can't find any meaning in it that just proves you are an idiot.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Those 'morons' would be absolutely correct, and it is an interesting fact. If you can't find any meaning in it that just proves you are an idiot.
Its an interesting yet utterly meaningless fact.
Hillary Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn lost their elections.
That you keep bandying about terms like moron or idiot doesn't make you intellectual.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Walz will be too old in 2032?
Walz has already said he isn't standing to be President - in fact I suspect he won't be on Harris's ticket in 2028...
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Walz will be too old in 2032?
Walz has already said he isn't standing to be President - in fact I suspect he won't be on Harris's ticket in 2028...
Isn't there a touch of MRDA to that statement?
I suspect he'll be on Harris's ticket in 2028 as I see little reason for the ticket to change, but I agree he's unlikely to run in 2032.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
I cry b/s on the cyberhack/DDOS claims.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
More likely is it's a lie.
He sacked most of the people who kept the site running
They may have done a test, but 8 million is a random and probably bogus number
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Which was mainly drivel, with Cyclefree straining to make connections.
Take foreign policy and pacifism. Trump does want to project force, just not actually use it. Corbyn did not. Trump is mainly concerned with domestic issues: Corbyn's highest priorities were Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. Trump classes himself (as did Cyclefree) with "strong" near-dictators like Xi, Putin, Orban or Kim Jong Un (as you'd know from the Musk interview: am I the only PBer who listened?) whereas Corbyn would have proletariat committees vote on how many sugars to stir in his tea. The great charge against Corbyn was that he would purge his opponents but in reality the problem was that he did not intervene in local parties even when hostile entryists were at large). The Stalinist purges came from Boris (aka Britain Trump) and Starmer.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Those 'morons' would be absolutely correct, and it is an interesting fact. If you can't find any meaning in it that just proves you are an idiot.
Its an interesting yet utterly meaningless fact.
Hillary Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn lost their elections.
That you keep bandying about terms like moron or idiot doesn't make you intellectual.
You yourself quote national opinion polls, despite pretending to believe that they have no meaning.
For some weird reason the phrase 'popular vote winner' threatens some fanatical belief you have, but most people know exactly what it means and can use it in a useful way.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
I cry b/s on the cyberhack/DDOS claims.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
More likely is it's a lie.
He sacked most of the people who kept the site running
They may have done a test, but 8 million is a random and probably bogus number
They went live. It fell over.
They lied about it
The rest of X appears to be working normally, however, and a source at the company confirmed to The Verge that there wasn’t actually a denial-of-service attack. Another X staffer said there was a “99 percent” chance Elon was lying about an attack.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Which was mainly drivel, with Cyclefree straining to make connections.
Take foreign policy and pacifism. Trump does want to project force, just not actually use it. Corbyn did not. Trump is mainly concerned with domestic issues: Corbyn's highest priorities were Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. Trump classes himself (as did Cyclefree) with "strong" near-dictators like Xi, Putin, Orban or Kim Jong Un (as you'd know from the Musk interview: am I the only PBer who listened?) whereas Corbyn would have proletariat committees vote on how many sugars to stir in his tea. The great charge against Corbyn was that he would purge his opponents but in reality the problem was that he did not intervene in local parties even when hostile entryists were at large). The Stalinist purges came from Boris (aka Britain Trump) and Starmer.
The only thing Trump and Corbyn have in common is the visceral hatred some people have for both of them.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Which was mainly drivel, with Cyclefree straining to make connections.
Take foreign policy and pacifism. Trump does want to project force, just not actually use it. Corbyn did not. Trump is mainly concerned with domestic issues: Corbyn's highest priorities were Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. Trump classes himself (as did Cyclefree) with "strong" near-dictators like Xi, Putin, Orban or Kim Jong Un (as you'd know from the Musk interview: am I the only PBer who listened?) whereas Corbyn would have proletariat committees vote on how many sugars to stir in his tea. The great charge against Corbyn was that he would purge his opponents but in reality the problem was that he did not intervene in local parties even when hostile entryists were at large). The Stalinist purges came from Boris (aka Britain Trump) and Starmer.
Corbyn is every bit as fond of dictators as Trump. His dictators have names like Chavez, Castro, Maduro etc but they're dictators all the same.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
I cry b/s on the cyberhack/DDOS claims.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
More likely is it's a lie.
He sacked most of the people who kept the site running
They may have done a test, but 8 million is a random and probably bogus number
They went live. It fell over.
They lied about it
The rest of X appears to be working normally, however, and a source at the company confirmed to The Verge that there wasn’t actually a denial-of-service attack. Another X staffer said there was a “99 percent” chance Elon was lying about an attack.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
The comparison isn’t in the policies. It is in the populism and projection onto The Leader of The Cult’s beliefs.
Even there, Boris is a closer parallel with Trump when it comes to populism and projection. To take the most glaring example where his followers ascribe their own beliefs to their cult leader, Boris was actually pro-immigration.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Those 'morons' would be absolutely correct, and it is an interesting fact. If you can't find any meaning in it that just proves you are an idiot.
Its an interesting yet utterly meaningless fact.
Hillary Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn lost their elections.
That you keep bandying about terms like moron or idiot doesn't make you intellectual.
You yourself quote national opinion polls, despite pretending to believe that they have no meaning.
For some weird reason the phrase 'popular vote winner' threatens some fanatical belief you have, but most people know exactly what it means and can use it in a useful way.
Opinion polls have no lasting meaning either, yes, completely agreed. I've had this argument with HYUFD many times who acts as if opinion polls are some objective and immutable truth rather than a snapshot.
The only meaningful election result is the actual election result.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Which was mainly drivel, with Cyclefree straining to make connections.
Take foreign policy and pacifism. Trump does want to project force, just not actually use it. Corbyn did not. Trump is mainly concerned with domestic issues: Corbyn's highest priorities were Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. Trump classes himself (as did Cyclefree) with "strong" near-dictators like Xi, Putin, Orban or Kim Jong Un (as you'd know from the Musk interview: am I the only PBer who listened?) whereas Corbyn would have proletariat committees vote on how many sugars to stir in his tea. The great charge against Corbyn was that he would purge his opponents but in reality the problem was that he did not intervene in local parties even when hostile entryists were at large). The Stalinist purges came from Boris (aka Britain Trump) and Starmer.
Corbyn is every bit as fond of dictators as Trump. His dictators have names like Chavez, Castro, Maduro etc but they're dictators all the same.
Oh FFS, if you stopped your knee jerking for just a minute, I already said Corbyn's main interests were Venezuela and Palestine. All you've done is add Cuba.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Corbyn has held the same views for decades, possibly with the exception of EU membership. They have often been passionate, unpopular causes and some frankly mad. Does Trump really believe in anything ? Despite the rhetoric Trumps main legacy will be stacking the supreme court.
Corbyn has been obssessed with support for underdog causes (Ireland, Palestine, Chagos Islands).
On taxation, immigration, equal rights, state spending and intervention, abortion, Israel, job protection, the environment, Education etc etc, Corbyn doesn't look like Trump.
Sure there was a bit of a personality cult around Corbyn but nothing like the demagoguery of Trump. Corbyn would also talk a glass eye to sleep.
If you look hard enough you can find similarities between anyone.
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Corbyn, as @Cyclefree wrote years ago.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Corbyn is the diametric opposite of Trump.
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
The one similarity (if I really strain) is that Trump is a personality cult and there was some of that around Jez esp after 2017.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
There are none so blind as those who wish not to see.
Which was mainly drivel, with Cyclefree straining to make connections.
Take foreign policy and pacifism. Trump does want to project force, just not actually use it. Corbyn did not. Trump is mainly concerned with domestic issues: Corbyn's highest priorities were Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. Trump classes himself (as did Cyclefree) with "strong" near-dictators like Xi, Putin, Orban or Kim Jong Un (as you'd know from the Musk interview: am I the only PBer who listened?) whereas Corbyn would have proletariat committees vote on how many sugars to stir in his tea. The great charge against Corbyn was that he would purge his opponents but in reality the problem was that he did not intervene in local parties even when hostile entryists were at large). The Stalinist purges came from Boris (aka Britain Trump) and Starmer.
Corbyn is every bit as fond of dictators as Trump. His dictators have names like Chavez, Castro, Maduro etc but they're dictators all the same.
Oh FFS, if you stopped your knee jerking for just a minute, I already said Corbyn's main interests were Venezuela and Palestine. All you've done is add Cuba.
Yes you said he was interested in Venezuela etc but then claimed a supposed difference between Trump and Corbyn in that one is keen on dictators and the other is not.
But they're both keener on dictators and less keen on democracy. Its yet another unpleasant similarity they both share.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Those 'morons' would be absolutely correct, and it is an interesting fact. If you can't find any meaning in it that just proves you are an idiot.
Its an interesting yet utterly meaningless fact.
Hillary Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn lost their elections.
That you keep bandying about terms like moron or idiot doesn't make you intellectual.
You yourself quote national opinion polls, despite pretending to believe that they have no meaning.
For some weird reason the phrase 'popular vote winner' threatens some fanatical belief you have, but most people know exactly what it means and can use it in a useful way.
Opinion polls have no lasting meaning either, yes, completely agreed. I've had this argument with HYUFD many times who acts as if opinion polls are some objective and immutable truth rather than a snapshot.
The only meaningful election result is the actual election result.
Are you saying you have never discussed an opinion poll result on here, except to say that it has no meaning, and talking about it is absurd?
Clearly Harris will win. I would vote for her as Trump is unhinged. But any result is suboptimal. The republicans need to pick a rational candidate in 2028 and onwards but I think it will be too late now for 2028, maybe even 2032.
Do you not think they'll wise up if Trump gets a pasting?
I think the Republicans will but by then Harris will have been president for four years and probably not a godawfully bad one and so will be easily re-elected. Likewise Walz for 2032 possibly. It will be hard to be elected President as a Republican before 2036 or 2040 all because of Trump.
Walz will be too old in 2032?
Walz has already said he isn't standing to be President - in fact I suspect he won't be on Harris's ticket in 2028...
Betfair should start a market on which will be Walz's last waltz.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
(One thing I am not clear on is whether and how Citizen Ballot initiatives vary between State and Presidential Elections.)
The ballot initiatives are all local in nature, held at state, county, or city level, depending on the jurisdiction of the issue concerned. There’s no nationwide referenda in the US, as far as I know.
There's no nationwide elections of any kind in the US.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
It's only absurd if you're too stupid to understand what the expression 'popular vote winner' means
It means nothing.
I see you are one of those too stupid.
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
Who gets the most votes across the nation means nothing.
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Those 'morons' would be absolutely correct, and it is an interesting fact. If you can't find any meaning in it that just proves you are an idiot.
Its an interesting yet utterly meaningless fact.
Hillary Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn lost their elections.
That you keep bandying about terms like moron or idiot doesn't make you intellectual.
You yourself quote national opinion polls, despite pretending to believe that they have no meaning.
For some weird reason the phrase 'popular vote winner' threatens some fanatical belief you have, but most people know exactly what it means and can use it in a useful way.
Opinion polls have no lasting meaning either, yes, completely agreed. I've had this argument with HYUFD many times who acts as if opinion polls are some objective and immutable truth rather than a snapshot.
The only meaningful election result is the actual election result.
Are you saying you have never discussed an opinion poll result on here, except to say that it has no meaning, and talking about it is absurd?
No, I can discuss things without claiming they have any actual lasting meaning.
Opinion polls are interesting as a snapshot of what may happen at the next election, they don't trump what does happen at the actual election.
Getting 33.7% of the popular vote and 411 seats is a much, much better election result than getting 40.0% of the popular vote and 232 seats.
"Winning" the popular vote but getting less electoral college votes than your rival who gets a majority of them means you've lost the election and the popular vote "victory" is utterly meaningless.
What Trump actually said at the time. And some pretending support for Ukraine on here claim that country would be safer hands with Trump as president.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
It's very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile what he said last night with what he previously claimed.
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
I gather it was delayed because of a cyberhack.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
I cry b/s on the cyberhack/DDOS claims.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
More likely is it's a lie.
He sacked most of the people who kept the site running
They may have done a test, but 8 million is a random and probably bogus number
They went live. It fell over.
They lied about it
The rest of X appears to be working normally, however, and a source at the company confirmed to The Verge that there wasn’t actually a denial-of-service attack. Another X staffer said there was a “99 percent” chance Elon was lying about an attack.
Not exactly news if Musk lies. I just assume everything he says is probably dishonest to save time.
Is Musk a net positive or negative to the human race? He's dead right about the need to electrify transport and energy production and storage and has made incredible advances to make that a reality. That's a big plus. Reusable rockets must also go on the plus side. If he helps Trump get elected when he otherwise wouldn't then that's a huge negative. Hopefully he will succeed in Tesla and SpaceX and fail miserably in boosting Trump.
Comments
Go back to 2016 though, and there were lots of Republicans making the point that while Trump wasn’t exactly everyone’s cup of tea among many Christian communities, the one thing he could offer them was the opportunity to keep up the Roe fight with Surpreme Court nominations.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Ying and yang.
I think it's worth noting a couple of things.
1 - These are 11 States out of only I think 26 that provide for citizen-led ballot initiatives, so it's quite a proportion of the places that do it, more than 40%.
2 - That these initiatives are quite difficult to get on the ballot in some places, for example Nebraska required "Signatures from 5% of registered voters in 40% (38) of the state's 93 counties" just to put it on the ballot. For an approximate UK analogy, for the Commons that would be petitions of ~4000 people in at least 260 separate Constituencies.
In Montana it's even more: "Signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each of 2/5 (40) of the 100 legislative districts".
Imagine needing in the UK 7500 signatures in 260 distinct Constituencies - what would it take to organise that, and how many organisations could do it?
That puts a heavy requirement on resources, money and infrastructure to deliver just the signatures. I'd be interested if someone checks the detail, but I expect that a lot is being delivered by organisations who are "fellow travellers" with the Democrats, perhaps with a similar funding base.
It's a high bar, which speaks to how deep this issue is in the consciousness.
https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_distribution_requirements_for_ballot_initiatives
I haven't watched it, but I guess last night's love-in was just two liars lying to each other...
But its not that hard to get on a coach or plane from Eastern Europe to the UK.
Especially if some rough people from the government give you a ticket and a printout on how to claim help when they arrive.
The pictures of Republican women on my Twitter feed look nothing like that, in fact there’s more than a few young hotties in the US conservative movement.
On the other hand, the pictures of Republican women in the ‘trolling’ folder on Mr Eagles’ computer…
I mean if you can't get basic presentation like that right - what hope is there for the rest of it.
If you want a laugh open https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50247064 and just select a paragraph of text to see how badly it's been done.
Doubt if Maduro would take it, but it shows how seriously the US sees the situation in Venezuela.
Cycling had always been a so-so thing for me; I sometimes enjoyed it, but much preferred long-distance walking. That was on my mountain bike; I'm surprised that, relatively late in life, thanks to this bike I've discovered I really like riding a bike. I'm not good at it, but who cares, as long as I enjoy it?
Many were Roma. Which is why many Roma from Romania ended up in the U.K.
It was disgusting and quite brutal - I’ve never understood why the UK government didn’t raise this as a human rights issue.
Who could want to stop Trump rambling on for two hours and digging himself an even bigger hole with suburban woman and swing voters?
Reality is the code is half baked and Musk fired most of the people who know how that code base works - I was surprised they actually got it working so someone did a good job but won't be getting the glory from it.
Give a man a tractor, and he can have as many tanks as he wants…
https://x.com/saintjavelin/status/1822916840324034732
The operation has been a huge (and unpredicted) success so far.
But where it goes from here is uncertain.
More likely: they found a few little issues when they did their claimed 'eight million' test earlier in the day, and decided to solve them, mucking things up in the process.
God knows why they did a 'test' so near the time of the 'interview'.
All it needs is normal bail restrictions enforced in one of them, and he's inside on remand.
Even House/Senate/Presidential elections are a collection of local elections not a single nationwide one, which is why talk of the popular vote winner is absurd.
Hopefully a second defeat of Trump will see America move on from Trump.
Though I'm not sure who plays the Starmer role in this analogy, who has been supporting Trump until election day but then moves the party on afterwards.
Mike Pence was Trump's link to the Evangelicals, who oppose abortion. Moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem was designed to bring Jewish voters onside (and Trump complained it didn't). Stacking the Supreme Court has been a Republican project for decades, starting with the lower courts. Likewise tax cuts for billionaires. Practically the only thing Trump believes in are that foreigners in general and China in particular is taking advantage of the USA. This has led to his proudest boast: no new wars.
TwiX is an advertising platform. Not all paid advertising, but still advertising.
Adverts are always populated by pretty people.
Four star premium MAGA fuel - the shameless exploitation of the dumb and gullible.
People who are 5x need to look as if they are a frozen-in-aspic version of 3x, people who are 7x need to look as if they are a frozen-in-aspic version of 5x? Applies to both sexes - see Trump, but women more?
To paraphrase John Nance Garner, VP from 1933-1941, quoted in Memories of the Great and the Good by Alistair Cooke (I'm not digging it out now): 'I have never seen a man's hair turn orange with so little warning.'
Trump and Boris is a closer analogy, as even The Donald acknowledged. Charismatic bullshitters with devoted followers. So the question of who comes next is whether Republicans can sidestep their Truss and Rishi stages.
Most of the young activists and commentators are as likely to see themselves as the next Megyn Kelly, rather than the next Nikki Haley.
https://www.worksinprogress.news/p/escape-to-the-country
With a moderately optimistic conclusion.
..Modern experience suggests that British planners have not learnt the mistakes of the past. The most recent attempt at New Town development in Britain, Northstowe, eight kilometers outside Cambridge, has 10,000 homes planned for with government support. Yet its isolated location means that it has no railway stations, shops or GP surgery, so its inhabitants have to drive everywhere.
Yet we know that these failures are optional. The success of the original New Towns of Edinburgh and Bath were not just due to good architectural decisions on the part of the designers, although these certainly helped. They worked because they were in places where people actually wanted to live.
The British government appears to be beginning to accept this fact. It has announced the building of a Cambridge New Town of up to 150,000 new homes directly adjacent to Cambridge’s existing built-up area. The new plans for New Towns specify that most will be urban extensions instead of standalone settlements. And there are places where new settlements could work. Samuel Hughes and Kane Emerson have suggested founding a New Town at Tempsford, where the East Coast Main Line and the new East West Rail line intersect. In their proposal, the development of the New Town would provide money to upgrade the Main Line, allowing the New Town to be a 20 and 40 minute train journey from Cambridge and London respectively. The promise of New Towns can still be realized – if they work with, rather than against, the facts of economic geography...
And whilst having at least two functional parties in a democracy is clearly a desirable thing, a couple of factors point against a Corbyn death followed by rebirth narrative for the Republicans.
For a start, they're not going to get the necessary tonking in November. Even if they lose, it's likely to be closeish.
The other is the looseness of American party structures. There's no cadre of Men In Grey Suits. If there were, Trump's actions in January 2021 would have ruled him out long ago, and Biden would have been eased out way earlier than he was.
Besides. There may be an uncompromised, non-batso, top Republican out there, but flip knows who.
But otherwise, no. One example amongst hundreds of huge differences - borders and immigration.
Or maybe some quiet old skool GOP governor we have not heard of.
In a sane world...
But I suspect the MAGA will just put Vance in for 2028 if Trump is somehow out of the picture. Or possible Ivenka or one of the other family. It is a cult and, like NKorea, the whacko worship of a deeply flawed human being can be passed onto the next generation.
But my friends we are getting way way ahead of ourselves.
There are many, many similarities: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/04/the-british-trump-the-similarities-between-the-president-and-the-leader-of-the-opposition/
A veritable spring chicken.
The thing to understand is how thoroughly the lower levels of the GOP have been taken over
It means who got most of the votes across the nation. hth
Similarly, most people manage discuss what percentage of the 'popular vote' parties got in the UK election, without morons saying 'it means nothing'
You can discuss it all you like, but it means absolutely nothing politically. Same as percentage of the popular vote in the UK.
Morons might claim that Keir Starmer did worse than Jeremy Corbyn as far as the popular vote is concerned, but the popular vote means nothing in this country either and one won by a landslide and the other lost.
HTH.
Although there's more similarities in many policies, such as a dislike of NATO and a fondness of Russia, than either wants to admit.
Hillary Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn lost their elections.
That you keep bandying about terms like moron or idiot doesn't make you intellectual.
I suspect he'll be on Harris's ticket in 2028 as I see little reason for the ticket to change, but I agree he's unlikely to run in 2032.
He sacked most of the people who kept the site running
They may have done a test, but 8 million is a random and probably bogus number
They went live. It fell over.
They lied about it
Take foreign policy and pacifism. Trump does want to project force, just not actually use it. Corbyn did not. Trump is mainly concerned with domestic issues: Corbyn's highest priorities were Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. Trump classes himself (as did Cyclefree) with "strong" near-dictators like Xi, Putin, Orban or Kim Jong Un (as you'd know from the Musk interview: am I the only PBer who listened?) whereas Corbyn would have proletariat committees vote on how many sugars to stir in his tea. The great charge against Corbyn was that he would purge his opponents but in reality the problem was that he did not intervene in local parties even when hostile entryists were at large). The Stalinist purges came from Boris (aka Britain Trump) and Starmer.
For some weird reason the phrase 'popular vote winner' threatens some fanatical belief you have, but most people know exactly what it means and can use it in a useful way.
The rest of X appears to be working normally, however, and a source at the company confirmed to The Verge that there wasn’t actually a denial-of-service attack. Another X staffer said there was a “99 percent” chance Elon was lying about an attack.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/12/24219121/donald-trump-elon-musk-interview-x-twitter-crashes
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/british-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyns-praise-for-dictators-and-extremists-should-be-disqualifying.html
The only meaningful election result is the actual election result.
Corbyn has held the same views for decades, possibly with the exception of EU membership.
They have often been passionate, unpopular causes and some frankly mad.
Does Trump really believe in anything ?
Despite the rhetoric Trumps main legacy will be stacking the supreme court.
Corbyn has been obssessed with support for underdog causes (Ireland, Palestine, Chagos Islands).
On taxation, immigration, equal rights, state spending and intervention, abortion, Israel, job protection, the environment, Education etc etc, Corbyn doesn't look like Trump.
Sure there was a bit of a personality cult around Corbyn but nothing like the demagoguery of Trump.
Corbyn would also talk a glass eye to sleep.
If you look hard enough you can find similarities between anyone.
Corbyn and Marine le Pen or Geert Wilders.
Sure why not.
But they're both keener on dictators and less keen on democracy. Its yet another unpleasant similarity they both share.
Opinion polls are interesting as a snapshot of what may happen at the next election, they don't trump what does happen at the actual election.
Getting 33.7% of the popular vote and 411 seats is a much, much better election result than getting 40.0% of the popular vote and 232 seats.
"Winning" the popular vote but getting less electoral college votes than your rival who gets a majority of them means you've lost the election and the popular vote "victory" is utterly meaningless.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mmAn9jZ2pmc
He's dead right about the need to electrify transport and energy production and storage and has made incredible advances to make that a reality. That's a big plus.
Reusable rockets must also go on the plus side.
If he helps Trump get elected when he otherwise wouldn't then that's a huge negative.
Hopefully he will succeed in Tesla and SpaceX and fail miserably in boosting Trump.