Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Going for the pro Trump UK voters was courageous from Badenoch – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/uae-visa-amnesty-lifeline-for-illegal-residents-job-seekers-until-oct-30-124090200697_1.html

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has introduced a visa amnesty programme, offering a lifeline to those residing illegally in the country. Running from September 1 to October 30, 2024, this initiative allows individuals to either regularise their status or leave the UAE without incurring penalties.

    Is that inaccurate?
    “Regularise their status” means that, if they have a ‘job’ at the moment, that their employer agrees to sponsor them for a proper work visa, or that they set themselves up as a company to be self-employed.
    So, when you said, "The amnesty requires you to leave the country", you were wrong?
    You either need to leave the country or get an official job.

    For the vast majority of those involved, all they want is to go ‘home’.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Calling it sexism or racism is ridiculous. Trump had a more diverse coalition of voters than ever.

    He unified them, I believe it was over the economy. Just as Johnson managed in 2019 with Brexit.

    IIRC they were estimating he got 15% of the black turnout (up from 9%) and only lost Latinos by 8 points. Expect to hear dark hints of race traitors from the more unhinged Dems.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    Some numbers...

    Harris is currently, with votes still being counted, on 47.4% of the vote. The last UK Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% of the vote was... Harold Wilson in 1966. The last Indian Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% was Nehru in 1957.

    Several US Presidents have won with less than 47.4%: Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43%; Nixon won in 1968 with 43.4%; Cleveland won in 1892 with 45.9%.

    The last US President to win with over 55% of the vote was Reagan in 1984 (58.8%). Nixon in 1972 was the last to top 60% (60.7%).

    But what are we supposed to conclude from that? Clinton and Nixon faced semi-serious third party opponents (Perot lead the polls at one point, and Wallace even carried some states). 1966 was an election where Grimond's Liberals didn't fight half the seats, and other minor parties were VERY minor.

    You can't sensibly compare between situations with significant third and fourth forces at play and those without, nor indeed between Presidential and Parliamentary elections.
    I don't know what to conclude from that. I just like numbers!

    I guess it's odd that we think it perfectly acceptable to think of a UK PM as having a mandate on a percentage vote share that would lose you a US election.

    In 1992, did people worry about Clinton winning on such a low vote share; ditto Nixon in 1968? Both did very well 4 years later.

    I also think some people are exaggerating Harris's loss. She lost, but Trump's win wasn't huge.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    I wonder if that's the thinking in Mozambique.
    People in Mozambique can be racist too.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    I don't. They're sitting on oodles of all sorts of energy, have tonnes of capital, gas, oil, solar and are a way away from global hotspots.

    I think the US economy is going to become more vertically integrated, their internal consumption is absolutely bonkers and the dollar is still the US dollar . They'll become even richer relative to the rest of the world imo.
    I hope you're right.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540

    Some numbers...

    Harris is currently, with votes still being counted, on 47.4% of the vote. The last UK Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% of the vote was... Harold Wilson in 1966. The last Indian Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% was Nehru in 1957.

    Several US Presidents have won with less than 47.4%: Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43%; Nixon won in 1968 with 43.4%; Cleveland won in 1892 with 45.9%.

    The last US President to win with over 55% of the vote was Reagan in 1984 (58.8%). Nixon in 1972 was the last to top 60% (60.7%).

    But what are we supposed to conclude from that? Clinton and Nixon faced semi-serious third party opponents (Perot lead the polls at one point, and Wallace even carried some states). 1966 was an election where Grimond's Liberals didn't fight half the seats, and other minor parties were VERY minor.

    You can't sensibly compare between situations with significant third and fourth forces at play and those without, nor indeed between Presidential and Parliamentary elections.
    I don't know what to conclude from that. I just like numbers!

    I guess it's odd that we think it perfectly acceptable to think of a UK PM as having a mandate on a percentage vote share that would lose you a US election.

    In 1992, did people worry about Clinton winning on such a low vote share; ditto Nixon in 1968? Both did very well 4 years later.

    I also think some people are exaggerating Harris's loss. She lost, but Trump's win wasn't huge.
    No they didn't re 1992 and 1968.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 3,645
    edited November 6
    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6


    Frank Luntz
    @FrankLuntz
    ·
    42m
    Trump won Dearborn, Michigan 42-36 with 18% voting for Jill Stein.

    Would like to see more info about how Trump did in college towns. In early voting, CNN kept showing him doing surprisingly well. Obviously not winning, but the way the demographic is portrayed you would think it would be 90% democrat (obviously being hyperbolic).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    I don't. They're sitting on oodles of all sorts of energy, have tonnes of capital, gas, oil, solar and are a way away from global hotspots.

    I think the US economy is going to become more vertically integrated, their internal consumption is absolutely bonkers and the dollar is still the US dollar . They'll become even richer relative to the rest of the world imo.
    I hope you're right.
    You hope the US becomes richer relative to the rest of the world?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    edited November 6

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    Got an existing or recent Barclaycard including Tesco?

    Also Lloyds are generous - I have 3 credit cards between them and Halifax 2 of which are my go to cards (the travel one with lounge access and a separate one with 0% foreign exchange purchases).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is actually serious about taking on the vested interests, with things like banning the pharma companies from advertising on TV, will it be Elon Musk that covers all of the massive pharma donations that the Reps and Senators get from that industry?

    It will be... interesting to see what of Trump's "plans" actually now happen. A ban on pharma companies advertising on TV would be welcome, but I imagine would hit 1st Amendment challenges.
    Cigarette advertising was banned on public health grounds, no reason why pharma adverstising can’t also be done for prescription-only medications that the public can’t buy directly.

    The question is how does the legislation pass a totally-bought Congress?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/uae-visa-amnesty-lifeline-for-illegal-residents-job-seekers-until-oct-30-124090200697_1.html

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has introduced a visa amnesty programme, offering a lifeline to those residing illegally in the country. Running from September 1 to October 30, 2024, this initiative allows individuals to either regularise their status or leave the UAE without incurring penalties.

    Is that inaccurate?
    “Regularise their status” means that, if they have a ‘job’ at the moment, that their employer agrees to sponsor them for a proper work visa, or that they set themselves up as a company to be self-employed.
    So, when you said, "The amnesty requires you to leave the country", you were wrong?
    You either need to leave the country or get an official job.

    For the vast majority of those involved, all they want is to go ‘home’.
    I can see you are having difficulty typing the actual words, "Yes, I was wrong." But thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6
    Driver said:

    Calling it sexism or racism is ridiculous. Trump had a more diverse coalition of voters than ever.

    He unified them, I believe it was over the economy. Just as Johnson managed in 2019 with Brexit.

    IIRC they were estimating he got 15% of the black turnout (up from 9%) and only lost Latinos by 8 points. Expect to hear dark hints of race traitors from the more unhinged Dems.
    Has Dawn Butler tweeted about white supremacy with black / brown face yet?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,015
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    I don't. They're sitting on oodles of all sorts of energy, have tonnes of capital, gas, oil, solar and are a way away from global hotspots.

    I think the US economy is going to become more vertically integrated, their internal consumption is absolutely bonkers and the dollar is still the US dollar . They'll become even richer relative to the rest of the world imo.
    That doesn't mean the average voter will feel better off - as we've seen with this election.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 3,645
    edited November 6
    eek said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    Got an existing or recent Barclaycard including Tesco?
    Nope, I last had a Barclaycard 7 years ago (you have just reminded me).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    I don't. They're sitting on oodles of all sorts of energy, have tonnes of capital, gas, oil, solar and are a way away from global hotspots.

    I think the US economy is going to become more vertically integrated, their internal consumption is absolutely bonkers and the dollar is still the US dollar . They'll become even richer relative to the rest of the world imo.
    I hope you're right.
    You hope the US becomes richer relative to the rest of the world?
    I want everyone to become richer. I hope the US becomes richer. If it becomes a lot richer and the rest of the world a bit richer, that's still good for the world, isn't it?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    If they tip the scales bigly to Vance's advantage, none of that matters - ever again.
    In 2004 Bush won about as big a margin in the popular vote as Trump did yesterday, 4 years later Obama won a landslide.

    Events can change rapidly in politics and if Trump's tariffs hike massively raise inflation further anything can happen
    Not if the election is cancelled as Trump has promised.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
    The thing to watch with the new administration is not whatever shit Trump tweets everyday after watching Tucker Carlson show and CNN is horrified by, it is what is going on in the background.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,903

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
    Note the wording here: Nigerians in Nigeria. Japanese in Japan. But it's "white British" in Britain. This is racism.

    @TheScreamingEagles why do we have to put up with racism here?
    How many Nigerians are not black? And how many Japanese are not yellow (as it were)?

    In this country there are millions of people who have a different coloured skin from that of the original inhabitants. I see nothing "racist" about Leon's making a distinction between two groups.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    .

    Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    The thing though is that I am not sure how compelling it would be to get in a candidate that basically said “the last administration's policies were crap”. Sunak tried that and it failed miserably.
    Yeah, but he had been part of it - inevitably so, as we don't really have a system that would allow candidates not part of the national leadership to rise to prominence in the same was as US state governors can.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/uae-visa-amnesty-lifeline-for-illegal-residents-job-seekers-until-oct-30-124090200697_1.html

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has introduced a visa amnesty programme, offering a lifeline to those residing illegally in the country. Running from September 1 to October 30, 2024, this initiative allows individuals to either regularise their status or leave the UAE without incurring penalties.

    Is that inaccurate?
    “Regularise their status” means that, if they have a ‘job’ at the moment, that their employer agrees to sponsor them for a proper work visa, or that they set themselves up as a company to be self-employed.
    So, when you said, "The amnesty requires you to leave the country", you were wrong?
    You either need to leave the country or get an official job.

    For the vast majority of those involved, all they want is to go ‘home’.
    I can see you are having difficulty typing the actual words, "Yes, I was wrong." But thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong.
    LOL. A change of visa status requires you to leave the country, unless you’re from a small list of countries (white people, not brown people) that allows in-country change of status.

    https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/kish-island-seeks-reinvention-from-uae-visa-run-location-1.248065

    You know fcuk all about the UAE, and I’ll keep calling you out on it for as long as you wish to debate me.
  • Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    The thing though is that I am not sure how compelling it would be to get in a candidate that basically said “the last administration's policies were crap”. Sunak tried that and it failed miserably.
    Yeah, but he had been part of it - inevitably so, as we don't really have a system that would allow candidates not part of the national leadership to rise to prominence in the same was as US state governors can.
    I see your point.

    It seems to me that the mistake the Democrats made was not having an open primary. Was there not time?
  • Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
    There'll be an element of that - though I don't think the tax saving will offset the $120m he's reportedly spent on the Trump campaign.

    I genuinely think it goes beyond that. He is deadly serious about Tesla as a way to save the environment, Space X as the way to break the shackles of Earth and "colonise mars" and he's now all in on AI. He isn't doing all of those things as a "tech bro". He wants to fight tech bro's like Zuckerberg, not fraternise with them.
  • Some numbers...

    Harris is currently, with votes still being counted, on 47.4% of the vote. The last UK Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% of the vote was... Harold Wilson in 1966. The last Indian Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% was Nehru in 1957.

    Several US Presidents have won with less than 47.4%: Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43%; Nixon won in 1968 with 43.4%; Cleveland won in 1892 with 45.9%.

    The last US President to win with over 55% of the vote was Reagan in 1984 (58.8%). Nixon in 1972 was the last to top 60% (60.7%).

    But what are we supposed to conclude from that? Clinton and Nixon faced semi-serious third party opponents (Perot lead the polls at one point, and Wallace even carried some states). 1966 was an election where Grimond's Liberals didn't fight half the seats, and other minor parties were VERY minor.

    You can't sensibly compare between situations with significant third and fourth forces at play and those without, nor indeed between Presidential and Parliamentary elections.
    I don't know what to conclude from that. I just like numbers!

    I guess it's odd that we think it perfectly acceptable to think of a UK PM as having a mandate on a percentage vote share that would lose you a US election.

    In 1992, did people worry about Clinton winning on such a low vote share; ditto Nixon in 1968? Both did very well 4 years later.

    I also think some people are exaggerating Harris's loss. She lost, but Trump's win wasn't huge.
    I don't really think it's odd to consider a UK PM has a mandate with a lower percentage vote than is typical in the US with its essentially two party system (even though I support PR). We have the system we have, and it's a Parliamentary one. But it's pretty clear, here and in the US, that most people wanted a change of government and did what was necessary within the rules of the game to get it.

    I agree with you that the significance of defeats (and victories) tend to be overstated in the immediate aftermath. "How will Party X ever win again?" is absolutely commonplace and then...

    That's not to say there aren't important lessons to learn from defeat. There certainly are. But the lessons drawn in the hours and days after defeat often aren't terribly useful. Thoughtful people take more time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,157
    edited November 6
    Has any president ever had the senate, the house & (ideologically) the court in his favour ?

    Someone's going to cite a really recent example here lol
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,186

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    You pay in full every month? How are they going to make any money off you?
  • Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    No idea, Mr Farage.
  • Driver said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    You pay in full every month? How are they going to make any money off you?
    Merchant service charge.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,840
    edited November 6

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
    Musk, tech bros and assorted squillionaires do not want to steal from the poor. For one thing, the poor have no money (the clue is in the name). No, they want billions in orders, subsidies and tax cuts from Uncle Sam. The poor aren't going to send SpaceX and Blue Origin to Mars. Nasa might, or the Pentagon.
  • Driver said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    You pay in full every month? How are they going to make any money off you?
    Why would I not pay in full?

    I've had multiple cards approved in that time and have still always paid off in full.

    Just checked again, 100% pre-approved for MBNA and Virgin, so clearly Barclaycard just don't want me as a customer for some reason!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,157
    DDHQ has called Nevada for Trump.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Could Shapiro have held PA?

    I guess now, we will never know.
  • Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
    Musk, tech bros and assorted squillionaires do not want to steal from the poor. For one thing, the poor have no money (the clue is in the name). No, they want billions in orders, subsidies and tax cuts from Uncle Sam. The poor aren't going to send SpaceX to Mars.
    The poor always have something useful; just look at the way the Russian state used them.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Pulpstar said:

    DDHQ has called Nevada for Trump.

    This is still going on?

    It's like getting updates from the palliative doctor even though you are on the way to the funeral.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    The thing though is that I am not sure how compelling it would be to get in a candidate that basically said “the last administration's policies were crap”. Sunak tried that and it failed miserably.
    Yeah, but he had been part of it - inevitably so, as we don't really have a system that would allow candidates not part of the national leadership to rise to prominence in the same was as US state governors can.
    I see your point.

    It seems to me that the mistake the Democrats made was not having an open primary. Was there not time?
    To hold an open primary it would have needed Biden to admit he was standing down in January and we still would have likely had Harris as the default candidate...

  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    The thing though is that I am not sure how compelling it would be to get in a candidate that basically said “the last administration's policies were crap”. Sunak tried that and it failed miserably.
    Yeah, but he had been part of it - inevitably so, as we don't really have a system that would allow candidates not part of the national leadership to rise to prominence in the same was as US state governors can.
    I see your point.

    It seems to me that the mistake the Democrats made was not having an open primary. Was there not time?
    Not after Biden quit, no. He'd have had to go months earlier.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,054
    edited November 6

    Why the pundits got it wrong: Dominic Sandbrook (of TRiH moonlighting on TRiP's livestream) who had tipped Trump explains what the political pundits missed.

    Two minute video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyIAJCWVxA

    Dominic Sandbrooke
    I think the one thing that people who are very
    interested in politics get wrong about
    politics more than anything else is that
    most Ordinary People are not interested
    in politics do not follow it do not care
    do not understand or do not care to
    understand I'm not saying they're in
    capable of understanding but they don't
    choose to follow and to immerse
    themselves in the minutae so all the
    things that we [said] off air before we
    recorded this was saying this will do
    for Trump this will kill him you know
    all these [things, but] a lot of people don't know
    about those things or don't care and as
    far as I can tell from the exit polls
    the single biggest issue for people was
    the issue that is almost always the
    single biggest issue in every election
    not just in America but everywhere in
    the Western World which is the economy
    ie are you better off and I think the
    inflation uh a couple of years ago
    clearly really hurts the Democrats
    because Harris was tarnished by that

    So all the things that we think should have
    destroy destroy Trump Puerto Rico
    garbage blah blah blah blah blah a lot
    of people probably weren't even aware of
    those things I think at any given moment
    most people...aren't watching those news
    people they have lives they're out doing [stuff]

    ...the one thing I always think...about all
    political history [is that this] it's the one thing
    that people get most wrong because
    people who write the history care about
    politics well

    Alistair Campbell
    can I tell you something
    one of Tony Blair's absolute pieces of
    Genius is a politician is he understood
    that all the time and always used to say
    to us "you lot need to understand people
    out there aren't thinking about us the
    whole time when they do think about us
    they've got to be thinking about [us] on our
    terms not our opponents"...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,338
    Pulpstar said:

    Has any president ever had the senate, the house & (ideologically) the court in his favour ?

    Someone's going to cite a really recent example here lol

    FDR by 1940.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
    Musk, tech bros and assorted squillionaires do not want to steal from the poor. For one thing, the poor have no money (the clue is in the name). No, they want billions in orders, subsidies and tax cuts from Uncle Sam. The poor aren't going to send SpaceX and Blue Origin to Mars. Nasa might, or the Pentagon.
    They also want to heavily involved in setting the rules over AI....to able to claim fair use of public data scrapped from the internet and other sources, but to bring up the drawback after them via just enough regulator capture to ensure they have a big moat that only they can meet.

    I am sure Google would also be rather happy if they aren't forced to be broken up, while TikyToky gets the castrated.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    Or alternatively, Musky Baby and his techBro friends just steal loads of money from the poor. Lower taxes for the rich; fewer jobs, less benefits, and higher taxes for the poor.

    That's what he wants.
    There'll be an element of that - though I don't think the tax saving will offset the $120m he's reportedly spent on the Trump campaign.

    I genuinely think it goes beyond that. He is deadly serious about Tesla as a way to save the environment, Space X as the way to break the shackles of Earth and "colonise mars" and he's now all in on AI. He isn't doing all of those things as a "tech bro". He wants to fight tech bro's like Zuckerberg, not fraternise with them.
    He isn't. He uses these things to progress the one thing he cares about: himself. In that, he is very much like Trump.

    He's friends with loads of tech bros. The fact that Zuckerberg and he do not get on is irrelevant.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,338
    Pulpstar said:

    DDHQ has called Nevada for Trump.

    I think John Ralston gave his forecast with his heart, more than his head. His data always pointed to a Republican victory to me.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    If they tip the scales bigly to Vance's advantage, none of that matters - ever again.
    In 2004 Bush won about as big a margin in the popular vote as Trump did yesterday, 4 years later Obama won a landslide.

    Events can change rapidly in politics and if Trump's tariffs hike massively raise inflation further anything can happen
    Not if the election is cancelled as Trump has promised.
    In the US elections are legally obliged to be held every 4 years, I doubt even a GOP Congress and the SC would support cancelling them and without the full support of the army he couldn't enforce it either as it would almost certainly lead to mass riots if not revolution in response
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 882
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.

    I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.

    Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.

    Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Has any president ever had the senate, the house & (ideologically) the court in his favour ?

    Someone's going to cite a really recent example here lol

    Not since LBJ or FDR maybe?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    eek said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    The thing though is that I am not sure how compelling it would be to get in a candidate that basically said “the last administration's policies were crap”. Sunak tried that and it failed miserably.
    Yeah, but he had been part of it - inevitably so, as we don't really have a system that would allow candidates not part of the national leadership to rise to prominence in the same was as US state governors can.
    I see your point.

    It seems to me that the mistake the Democrats made was not having an open primary. Was there not time?
    To hold an open primary it would have needed Biden to admit he was standing down in January and we still would have likely had Harris as the default candidate...

    At least then she would have been tested through a primary campaign.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,186
    Pulpstar said:

    Has any president ever had the senate, the house & (ideologically) the court in his favour ?

    Someone's going to cite a really recent example here lol

    FDR was the big one - in terms of time and solidity of the majorities.

    Biden had the House and 50-50 in the Senate (for a bit)

    Clinton and GWB had both chambers for parts of their Presidencies...
  • Sandpit said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
    But then why would Lloyds and MBNA pre-approve me for a card at the same interest rate?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,761
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    I wonder if that's the thinking in Mozambique.
    You get this kind of thinking everywhere. No doubt in Mozambique. Certainly we saw it in Rwanda, not a million miles away. The idea that a group of people's very existence is threatened simply by the existence of another always has the potential to end up taking a country to a very dark place. It is essentially genocidal thinking. At the very least, it is the opening thought in a progression to genocide. Applying it in the context of babies, who are innocent beings deserving of our protection not vilification, is particularly repulsive. And yet in genocides people will happily kill babies, because they are perceived as a threat.
    I'm surprised any of this needs saying.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    MBNA specialises in weaker credit customers. Lloyds and Barclays is probably just the difference between the agencies they use.

    My rating with Experian for example is about 30 points higher than it is with one of the other agencies (can’t remember which).

    Have you checked your ratings online? It’s free.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777

    Could Shapiro have held PA?

    I guess now, we will never know.

    Not just PA but Wisconsin and Michigan too. Then the path to 270 would have looked a lot easier, just one more state to pick up. Instead they picked Walz who was the "own the chuds" pick and "vibes" VP candidate. The Dems chose a strategy of hating their opponents and the people who vote for them, it's ended poorly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687

    Rolling Stone
    @RollingStone

    Donald Trump — the twice impeached former president, Jan. 6 coup leader, convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, and man who mismanaged the 2020 economic implosion and coronavirus disaster that killed more than 1 million people in this country — has convinced American voters to give him another term in the White House.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,186

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    Different thinking. To some ways of thinking - "This guy never pays any interest or fees. And would take from our loyalty program."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Could Shapiro have held PA?

    I guess now, we will never know.

    Almost certainly yes he could, but it ends up being irrelevant.

    Plus the risk of upsetting even more of the ‘Palestine’ mob in other swing states. Jill Stein has done very well in a whole load of counties. Not that the Dems would ever admit to being racist.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.

    I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.

    Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.

    Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
    You may not, the white working class certainly do, hence they are voting for Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders etc.

    Ironically it may be Eastern Europe that ends up the last white majority area of the globe in 50-100 years time
  • ClippP said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
    Note the wording here: Nigerians in Nigeria. Japanese in Japan. But it's "white British" in Britain. This is racism.

    @TheScreamingEagles why do we have to put up with racism here?
    How many Nigerians are not black? And how many Japanese are not yellow (as it were)?

    In this country there are millions of people who have a different coloured skin from that of the original inhabitants. I see nothing "racist" about Leon's making a distinction between two groups.
    This would presumably exclude people like Disraeli, then.

    In fact, it should really exclude anyone who isn't connected to the Brythonic culture of Britain, a lot of whose inhabitants were probably much darker than what we see in those areas today. The predictable counter-argument would be that it was mainly a celtic-germanic mix of people that built modern Britain ; but then that argument should probably be more honestly expressed as a more
    European blood-and-soil nativism, rather than who or what is indigenous.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,261

    I, too, am going to take a break from posting, likely until the new year (though not ruling out earlier if something really crazy happens).

    2024 has been a big year with the US election and the GE. I have really enjoyed following the twists and turns. Some of my predictions and bets have been good (in the GE) and some bad (in the US). So a mixed bag.

    But I have been feeling for some time rather overwhelmed with regularly following news and current affairs. Like Brenda from Bristol, perhaps there has been too much politics going on for me, this past period.

    I will dip into the goings-on occasionally, no doubt. I will doubtless lurk from time to time, but in the meantime I will be focussing on Christmas preparations, family and friends, and enjoying some of my other interests.

    I will likely be back once Trump has taken office and Badenoch/the new government have bedded in a bit more.

    Best wishes to all.

    All the best. See you soon. 👍
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    edited November 6
    Pulpstar said:

    Has any president ever had the senate, the house & (ideologically) the court in his favour ?

    Someone's going to cite a really recent example here lol

    Trump's first term after the appointment of Kavanaugh but before the midterms? Only a couple of months, mind.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,338
    Nevada was not even particularly close (although the Senate race is tight). Trump will win Nevada by c.60,000.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,344
    Pulpstar said:

    Has any president ever had the senate, the house & (ideologically) the court in his favour ?

    Someone's going to cite a really recent example here lol

    There's a chart showing Presidential and Congressional control on this page.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

    Control of the Court would be a bit more contentious, perhaps. The trifecta doesn't seem to be all that historically unusual, so I'd have thought that would coincide with the Court reasonably often.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,148
    edited November 6

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    Having people who are unreliable payers (and consequently git hit with interest) is not really how banks make money on credit cards. Merchant fees is where the money is. Yes, you can hit a flaky customer with high interest charges for late payment, but there is a serious risk some of those customers will never pay - that they'll go bankrupt owing you a lot, or at least cost a lot of money to chase.

    The best customer is one who reliably pays off their balance, and you keep collecting a percentage from merchants on all transactions.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,906
    edited November 6
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    If they tip the scales bigly to Vance's advantage, none of that matters - ever again.
    In 2004 Bush won about as big a margin in the popular vote as Trump did yesterday, 4 years later Obama won a landslide.

    Events can change rapidly in politics and if Trump's tariffs hike massively raise inflation further anything can happen
    Not if the election is cancelled as Trump has promised.
    In the US elections are legally obliged to be held every 4 years, I doubt even a GOP Congress and the SC would support cancelling them and without the full support of the army he couldn't enforce it either as it would almost certainly lead to mass riots if not revolution in response
    You don't have to cancel the election. A bunch of Republican states simply need to take the worst policies regarding things like voter registration, districting, campaign funding, voting locations, vote counting, and apply them across their states, and they can make it much harder for Democrats to win again. The GOP has been up to mischief for years, why would they stop now?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Sandpit said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
    But then why would Lloyds and MBNA pre-approve me for a card at the same interest rate?
    Because they are less risk-averse and have different standards.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,261

    Anyway, I'm back on hiatus. Will pop back if hilarious shenanigans or ww3 kick in, otherwise will probably return to posting and engaging in the New Year. Do let me be first to wish you all a Merry Christmas.
    Later.

    Merry Christmas. See you soon 👍
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,157

    Looking at the recent vote totals for the Democrats, 2020 really stands out:

    2012: 65.9m
    2016: 65.9m
    2020: 81.3m
    2024: 66.4m +

    We still need to see what the final turnout and numbers for Harris are this year. California had a turnout of 17 million last time round, it's at 9.5 million right now - there's dribs and drabs to come in from elsewhere too (WA) for instance.

    I don't think this sort of analysis can start for a while yet.

    Clearly Biden had widespread appeal though.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    ClippP said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
    Note the wording here: Nigerians in Nigeria. Japanese in Japan. But it's "white British" in Britain. This is racism.

    @TheScreamingEagles why do we have to put up with racism here?
    How many Nigerians are not black? And how many Japanese are not yellow (as it were)?

    In this country there are millions of people who have a different coloured skin from that of the original inhabitants. I see nothing "racist" about Leon's making a distinction between two groups.
    This whole colour thing is hilarious. Who is 'white'? Who is 'black' ? Yes, we can point at the extremes, but it's in no way binary.

    Yet in Leon's diseased mind, it is binary. White and non-white. British and non-British.

    I've no idea where he would class Mrs J on the white/non-white scale, or on the British/non-British; but anyone with friends or relatives who might not fit in the 'White British' category he so loves should be concerned about his only slightly hidden Great Replacement Theory rantings.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
    But then why would Lloyds and MBNA pre-approve me for a card at the same interest rate?
    Because they are less risk-averse and have different standards.
    Thanks. I guess it makes sense, will go with them then. The credit limit they are offering along with everything else is the same for me.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    glw said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    If they tip the scales bigly to Vance's advantage, none of that matters - ever again.
    In 2004 Bush won about as big a margin in the popular vote as Trump did yesterday, 4 years later Obama won a landslide.

    Events can change rapidly in politics and if Trump's tariffs hike massively raise inflation further anything can happen
    Not if the election is cancelled as Trump has promised.
    In the US elections are legally obliged to be held every 4 years, I doubt even a GOP Congress and the SC would support cancelling them and without the full support of the army he couldn't enforce it either as it would almost certainly lead to mass riots if not revolution in response
    You don't have to cancel the election. A bunch of Republican states simply need to take the worst policies regarding things like voter registration, districting, campaign funding, voting locations, vote counting, and apply them across their states, and they can make it much harder for Democrats to win again. The GOP has been up to mischief for years, why would they stop now?
    As I said earlier and have posted before. This is quite likely to be the last free and fair election for some time. Trump is now only leaving the WH when he leaves this world.

    But Americans were warned. Enough of them don't care.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    glw said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    If they tip the scales bigly to Vance's advantage, none of that matters - ever again.
    In 2004 Bush won about as big a margin in the popular vote as Trump did yesterday, 4 years later Obama won a landslide.

    Events can change rapidly in politics and if Trump's tariffs hike massively raise inflation further anything can happen
    Not if the election is cancelled as Trump has promised.
    In the US elections are legally obliged to be held every 4 years, I doubt even a GOP Congress and the SC would support cancelling them and without the full support of the army he couldn't enforce it either as it would almost certainly lead to mass riots if not revolution in response
    You don't have to cancel the election. A bunch of Republican states simply need to take the worst policies regarding things like voter registration, districting, campaign funding, voting locations, vote counting, and apply them across their states, and they can make it much harder for Democrats to win again. The GOP has been up to mischief for years, why would they stop now?
    Unless they hold the governor and state legislature much more difficult to do and only a minority of US states even now have GOP governors and state legislatures
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,261


    Rolling Stone
    @RollingStone

    Donald Trump — the twice impeached former president, Jan. 6 coup leader, convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, and man who mismanaged the 2020 economic implosion and coronavirus disaster that killed more than 1 million people in this country — has convinced American voters to give him another term in the White House.

    Just goes to show how bad Kamala must have been...
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 882
    HYUFD said:

    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.

    I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.

    Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.

    Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
    You may not, the white working class certainly do, hence they are voting for Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders etc.

    Ironically it may be Eastern Europe that ends up the last white majority area of the globe in 50-100 years time
    I guess my point is that they might not care forever. But maybe they will, it depends on what their children are told, and their children.

    I was a white working class child once (actually my Dad was what the Soviets would have probably called a social parasite) but I have benefitted from some social mobility (not self-made, I hasten to add).
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,782
    edited November 6

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    OK from someone who is a credit card tart:

    I am someone who has played the 0% game. Take out a 0% card, take it up to the limit then put it away and take out another and so on. When it comes to the date to pay it off without incurring interest I do so, or if a foc balance transfer to another 0% card is available, I do that. I then invested the money.

    As a consequence I have oodles of credit cards and a huge credit limit. The more you do the more they love you even though you never pay a penny in interest.

    We have stopped doing it now as I can't be bothered any more and my wife hated it because we had so many cards, however I still have a very big limit. My wife cancelled all of hers and she then struggled to get a card and a sensible limit. Not helped because we are not taking our drawdown pensions yet so our income is trivial (they don't get people having assets but no income).

    We got my wife a card and a decent limit by calling and escalating past the box tickers.

    So call and insist on escalating with your justification ready. Don't cancel credit cards. If you don't want to use it put it to one side. It increases your unused credit available to you which is attractive.

    Also check your credit rating with a credit agency. The one I use is free.
  • kjh said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    OK from someone who is a credit card tart:

    I am someone who has played the 0% game. Take out a 0% card, take it up to the limit then put it away and take out another and so on. When it comes to the date to pay it off without incurring interest I do so, or if a foc balance transfer to another 0% card is available, I do that. I then invested the money.

    As a consequence I have oodles of credit cards and a huge credit limit. The more you do the more they love you even though you never pay a penny in interest.

    We have stopped doing it now as I can't be bothered any more and my wife hated it because we had so many cards, however I still have a very big limit. My wife cancelled all of hers and she then struggled to get a card and a sensible limit. Not helped because we are not taking our drawdown pensions yet so our income is trivial (they don't get people having assets but no income).

    We got my wife a card and a decent limit by calling and escalating passed to box tickers.

    So call and insist on escalating with your justification ready. Don't cancel credit cards. If you don't want to use it put it to one side. It increases your unused credit available to you which is attractive.

    Also check your credit rating with a credit agency. The one I use is free.
    This is literally exactly what I've been doing for years, I thought I was the only one!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.

    I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.

    Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.

    Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
    Merely arguing about this gets me banned. As does discussing “that technology”. Or posting more than 1 photo

    And so on and so on

    I realise this is a perverse form of flattery. I am simultaneously smart, exceedingly articulate and notably well informed, and possessed of no false modesty; also I have a lot of free time which enables me to beat up people on this site (yay for me!), but also allows me to dominate discussions (and I can genuinely see how that irritates others)

    See. I’m also ultra self aware. So I’m happy to sometimes back off certain debates in the interests of general decorum. Including this debate

    My round!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,211
    Has @kinabalu surfaced yet?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,157
    Trump needs to get to work right away, he'll probably lose the house halfway through his presidency
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    edited November 6
    GIN1138 said:


    Rolling Stone
    @RollingStone

    Donald Trump — the twice impeached former president, Jan. 6 coup leader, convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, and man who mismanaged the 2020 economic implosion and coronavirus disaster that killed more than 1 million people in this country — has convinced American voters to give him another term in the White House.

    Just goes to show how bad Kamala must have been...
    It wasn't just her, I don't think any Democrat would have won this year given the scale of his victory.

    Anyway Middle America has voted for massive tariffs, abortion restrictions and immigrant deportations and can't complain if it doesn't turn out exactly as they liked in 4 years time
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,035

    Driver said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    You pay in full every month? How are they going to make any money off you?
    Why would I not pay in full?

    I've had multiple cards approved in that time and have still always paid off in full.

    Just checked again, 100% pre-approved for MBNA and Virgin, so clearly Barclaycard just don't want me as a customer for some reason!
    Do you bank at Barclays by any chance or have a mortgage with them? They might be looking at something others can’t see to do with an existing account, which has informed an affordability judgement. They might also use a different credit reference agency to the others you have tried and someone could have made an error on their side (if so it’s well worth checking the file and correcting it).

    Obviously don’t answer too many of these Qs on a public forum.

    Don’t keep applying though! (Though it looks like this is all “pre-approvals?”).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    edited November 6

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
    But then why would Lloyds and MBNA pre-approve me for a card at the same interest rate?
    Because they are less risk-averse and have different standards.
    Thanks. I guess it makes sense, will go with them then. The credit limit they are offering along with everything else is the same for me.
    You need to play the game. Take the highest credit limit you can find, then run up the highest balance you can while still making sure you pay off the full balance on the due date every single month, for a couple of years. Never be a day late with a single payment.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,409
    ...
    GIN1138 said:

    Kemi did fine, IMO.

    We've got four and half years of Keir Vs Kemi and I'm sure she'll have better (and worse) outing's.

    Edit: The main telling point was all the Labour MP's starting their questions with "Kemi said this. Kemi said that" lol!

    It sort of feeds slightly into the lazy narrative. Why assume someone hasn't mentioned something unless you're sure? Mad to give Reeves' crappy budget a lifeline.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    Pulpstar said:

    Trump needs to get to work right away, he'll probably lose the house halfway through his presidency

    The Guardian has pledged to "stand up" to him too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/how-the-guardian-will-stand-up-to-four-more-years-of-donald-trump
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 3,645
    edited November 6
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
    But then why would Lloyds and MBNA pre-approve me for a card at the same interest rate?
    Because they are less risk-averse and have different standards.
    Thanks. I guess it makes sense, will go with them then. The credit limit they are offering along with everything else is the same for me.
    You need to play the game. Take the highest credit limit you can find, then run up the highest balance you can while still making sure you pay off the full balance on the due date every single month, for a couple of years. Never be a day late with a single payment.
    I've been doing that for the last seven. It's just Barclaycard that won't let me have a card with them. I only went with them initially because of the slightly longer interest free period which I use to invest the money.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,391
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is actually serious about taking on the vested interests, with things like banning the pharma companies from advertising on TV, will it be Elon Musk that covers all of the massive pharma donations that the Reps and Senators get from that industry?

    It will be... interesting to see what of Trump's "plans" actually now happen. A ban on pharma companies advertising on TV would be welcome, but I imagine would hit 1st Amendment challenges.
    Cigarette advertising was banned on public health grounds, no reason why pharma adverstising can’t also be done for prescription-only medications that the public can’t buy directly.

    The question is how does the legislation pass a totally-bought Congress?
    I don't see the point banning advertising of POMs in the UK - the patient rarely gets to choose the brand (more often its what the pharmacy has). You may have differences in things like slow release etc, and its definitely a thing that different brands can behave differently in a given patient, but that is irrelevant if the patient is not the one making the choice.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,344
    MaxPB said:

    Could Shapiro have held PA?

    I guess now, we will never know.

    Not just PA but Wisconsin and Michigan too. Then the path to 270 would have looked a lot easier, just one more state to pick up. Instead they picked Walz who was the "own the chuds" pick and "vibes" VP candidate. The Dems chose a strategy of hating their opponents and the people who vote for them, it's ended poorly.
    That strategy works for Trump.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6

    Pulpstar said:

    Trump needs to get to work right away, he'll probably lose the house halfway through his presidency

    The Guardian has pledged to "stand up" to him too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/how-the-guardian-will-stand-up-to-four-more-years-of-donald-trump
    Begging bowl grift out already. I presume this constant begging must raise them a decent chunk of money.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228

    Pulpstar said:

    Trump needs to get to work right away, he'll probably lose the house halfway through his presidency

    The Guardian has pledged to "stand up" to him too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/how-the-guardian-will-stand-up-to-four-more-years-of-donald-trump
    I just read that. Awkward echoes of the Skibbereen Eagle
  • biggles said:

    Driver said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    You pay in full every month? How are they going to make any money off you?
    Why would I not pay in full?

    I've had multiple cards approved in that time and have still always paid off in full.

    Just checked again, 100% pre-approved for MBNA and Virgin, so clearly Barclaycard just don't want me as a customer for some reason!
    Do you bank at Barclays by any chance or have a mortgage with them? They might be looking at something others can’t see to do with an existing account, which has informed an affordability judgement. They might also use a different credit reference agency to the others you have tried and someone could have made an error on their side (if so it’s well worth checking the file and correcting it).

    Obviously don’t answer too many of these Qs on a public forum.

    Don’t keep applying though! (Though it looks like this is all “pre-approvals?”).
    Yeah pre-approvals so I haven't done any actual applications beyond Barclaycard.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Rolling Stone
    @RollingStone

    Donald Trump — the twice impeached former president, Jan. 6 coup leader, convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, and man who mismanaged the 2020 economic implosion and coronavirus disaster that killed more than 1 million people in this country — has convinced American voters to give him another term in the White House.

    Just goes to show how bad Kamala must have been...
    It wasn't just her, I don't think any Democrat would have won this year given the scale of his victory.

    Anyway Middle America has voted for massive tariffs, abortion restrictions and immigrant deportations and can't complain if it doesn't turn out exactly as they liked in 4 years time
    And an end to Obama Care and slashing of all Fed spending by trillions under Musk and healthcare run by RFK.

    They wanted it. They are gonna get it good and hard as HL Mencken said many many years ago.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,782

    kjh said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    OK from someone who is a credit card tart:

    I am someone who has played the 0% game. Take out a 0% card, take it up to the limit then put it away and take out another and so on. When it comes to the date to pay it off without incurring interest I do so, or if a foc balance transfer to another 0% card is available, I do that. I then invested the money.

    As a consequence I have oodles of credit cards and a huge credit limit. The more you do the more they love you even though you never pay a penny in interest.

    We have stopped doing it now as I can't be bothered any more and my wife hated it because we had so many cards, however I still have a very big limit. My wife cancelled all of hers and she then struggled to get a card and a sensible limit. Not helped because we are not taking our drawdown pensions yet so our income is trivial (they don't get people having assets but no income).

    We got my wife a card and a decent limit by calling and escalating passed to box tickers.

    So call and insist on escalating with your justification ready. Don't cancel credit cards. If you don't want to use it put it to one side. It increases your unused credit available to you which is attractive.

    Also check your credit rating with a credit agency. The one I use is free.
    This is literally exactly what I've been doing for years, I thought I was the only one!
    I'm surprised you had a problem then. Maybe they have caught on, although I found they didn't care. I was once open with Santander about it and they couldn't give two hoots. I would be interested to know what you got your limit up to. Mine was such that if I used it regularly I could never pay it off.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,946

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    I wonder if that's the thinking in Mozambique.
    You get this kind of thinking everywhere. No doubt in Mozambique. Certainly we saw it in Rwanda, not a million miles away. The idea that a group of people's very existence is threatened simply by the existence of another always has the potential to end up taking a country to a very dark place. It is essentially genocidal thinking. At the very least, it is the opening thought in a progression to genocide. Applying it in the context of babies, who are innocent beings deserving of our protection not vilification, is particularly repulsive. And yet in genocides people will happily kill babies, because they are perceived as a threat.
    I'm surprised any of this needs saying.
    All true but there is scant effort to understand the thinking of people that many, many on PB for example, would classify as racist. White babies I appreciate is pretty out there and is imo a racist idea to use but let's look at the Southport riots.

    Generally, an outpouring motivated by a perception that there has been uncontrolled immigration and that the UK's culture is changing in a way that those people don't like. And they have been universally condemned by just about everyone with no effort to understand the motives behind the actions.

    You may have seen my posts where I praise (to high heaven) the book "Mad Mobs and Englishmen" about the 2011 riots where Steve Reicher and Cliff Stott go to great lengths to justify, contextualise and therefore understand the riots and point out that there were several forces at play, one of which was criminal opportunism, but many of which related to power and treatment at the hands of the police of black youth in particular.

    I was hugely disappointed to hear the very same Steve Reicher, talking about the Southport riots, about how it was pure criminality and that anyway, the country loves immigrants and immigration has been shown to be beneficial to the UK.

    In much the same way that frothing right wingers (and many on PB at the time) might have said but I have never had any problem with the police, nor been stopped and searched 20 times, or even once, and hence everyone out on the streets of Tottenham in 2011 are just mindless thugs.

    There is no effort to address the concerns of a non-trivial element of the population that doesn't want either a Polish supermarket, nor Friday prayers broadcast from the newly-built mosque in the next street.

    So although @Leon did cross the line with the "white babies" thing he was in his own way articulating this unaddressed concern.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?

    It may be that they are judging you on the basis of not having ever having paid 27% interest.
    One of my current cards is 29% I think.

    I get the principle of what you are saying but I can't understand why MBNA would approve me then.
    So it’s the other problem. They know you have a 29% card, and are shying away from you on that basis.
    But then why would Lloyds and MBNA pre-approve me for a card at the same interest rate?
    Because they are less risk-averse and have different standards.
    Thanks. I guess it makes sense, will go with them then. The credit limit they are offering along with everything else is the same for me.
    You need to play the game. Take the highest credit limit you can find, then run up the highest balance you can while still making sure you pay off the full balance on the due date every single month, for a couple of years. Never be a day late with a single payment.
    I've been doing that for the last seven. It's just Barclaycard that won't let me have a card with them. I only went with them initially because of the slightly longer interest free period which I use to invest the money.
    Well tell them to F. Off, and find another supplier.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,391
    Leon said:

    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.

    I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.

    Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.

    Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
    Merely arguing about this gets me banned. As does discussing “that technology”. Or posting more than 1 photo

    And so on and so on

    I realise this is a perverse form of flattery. I am simultaneously smart, exceedingly articulate and notably well informed, and possessed of no false modesty; also I have a lot of free time which enables me to beat up people on this site (yay for me!), but also allows me to dominate discussions (and I can genuinely see how that irritates others)

    See. I’m also ultra self aware. So I’m happy to sometimes back off certain debates in the interests of general decorum. Including this debate

    My round!
    I posted back when you were banned that the issue isn't about white babies its actually about culture, and whether an indigenous people have the right to maintain their culture and not have it 'swamped' with people whose culture and values can be very different.

    An obvious example is the more extreme forms of Muslim dress codes (seemingly exclusively for women, it seems) contrasting with the host countries very liberalised behaviour. But its not just that. I object to the Halal meat industry, and certainly object to organisations choosing Halal supply simply to accommodate any Muslims who might wish for Halal food (I'm thinking of 100% Halal).

    But ultimately most people of whatever culture tend to be decent, honest, want to get on. So the differences between them are far smaller than the similarities.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,189
    ClippP said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
    Note the wording here: Nigerians in Nigeria. Japanese in Japan. But it's "white British" in Britain. This is racism.

    @TheScreamingEagles why do we have to put up with racism here?
    How many Nigerians are not black? And how many Japanese are not yellow (as it were)?

    In this country there are millions of people who have a different coloured skin from that of the original inhabitants. I see nothing "racist" about Leon's making a distinction between two groups.
    You see nothing racist in saying British babies should be white? That's fucking nuts.

    What about "there ain't no black in the union jack"? Just a factual description, right?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Interesting ...

    Twice during Sir Keir Starmer’s first dinner with Donald Trump at the end of September, the former president turned to the prime minister and said: “You’re a liberal, so we won’t always agree but we can work together.” At the end of the meal, he looked at Starmer and said: “You and I are friends.” Starmer’s team breathed a sigh of relief. With America set to choose a new commander-in-chief, personal relationships could define the future of the transatlantic alliance.

    An even bigger hit with Trump than the buttoned-up Starmer, however, was David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Lammy laughed in the right places at Trump’s jokes and the former president personally offered him a second portion of food, a moment of both levity and symbolism as a man accused of neo-fascist tendencies bonded with the descendant of slaves.

    https://www.thetimes.com/article/3dc32d10-c375-49e3-947e-1b23c1e37c27?shareToken=cdabe8cdd0a24416d7d4da6f7363ddef
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,391

    Pulpstar said:

    Trump needs to get to work right away, he'll probably lose the house halfway through his presidency

    The Guardian has pledged to "stand up" to him too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/how-the-guardian-will-stand-up-to-four-more-years-of-donald-trump
    Are they gonna write nasty stories about how awful he is? I imagine he will be mortified.
This discussion has been closed.