It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trump needs to get to work right away, he'll probably lose the house halfway through his presidency
He can't do much until January 20th - the transition is going to be interesting, As I recall, it was a very frosty handover from Obama to Trump in late 2015/early 2016.
The Trump Transition Team will also be interesting as a clue to the possible members of his Cabinet.
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.
This isn't true if you are talking the UK
interchange fees on personal cards were capped almost 10 years ago to 0.3% in the EU In the USA those fees are closer to 2% Ok there are other fees for the card reader etc, but the merchant costs are massively less than the USA
UK credit card companies make far more in interest.
There is roughly £70bn of balance on credit cards at any one time. Some will be on low or zero rate, but much will be racking up eye watering interest. Banks probably write off £1.2bn of credit card debt a year but still massive juice for them in 25% interest rates.
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.
Indeed. Imagine how less fcuked-up US healthcare would be, if Medicare and Medicaid were allowed to negotiate drug prices in the same way as the NHS? With the drug companies not running TV adverts 24/7.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
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.
Roosevelt had two-thirds majorities in both Houses during most of the New Deal era, though as the Court struck down some key ND legislation, he didn't have a particularly compliant SCOTUS (no Supreme Court vacancy came up during his first term, although he'd nominated virtually the entire Court by the time he died).
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
Ironic, since what you are describing is how the world used to operate when everywhere had absolute monarchs.
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.
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.
I totally understand their thinking. I just think they're wrong. Am I not allowed to say that?
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
Leon you said that AI was going to take over. But it can't even do basic Maths.
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.
Yes and he was an old school Democrat in many ways who anchored the Obama ticket.
As you say, there's a huge amount of analysis to be done as to what happened and why it happened. To be fair, we are still going through the entrails of our own fascinating election but instant analysis is de rigueur these days.
I just read that. Awkward echoes of the Skibbereen Eagle
The Skibbereen Eagle did survive another 31 years after putting the Tsar on notice that they would be keeping an eye on him. Rather longer than the Romanovs lasted.
One wonders how the Guardian will fare with respect to the Trump dynasty.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
To be fair that describes pretty much everyone on here.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Not entirely unique amongst our happy little community...
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?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
Ironic, since what you are describing is how the world used to operate when everywhere had absolute monarchs.
It's always struck me as... odd, that some people get so worked up by the title of "King", but are relaxed about Presidents who are monarchs in all but name, or holders of vast wealth who could field armies out of their resources.
Although, it's also very ancient. It's how the Romans operated.
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.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
Leon you said that AI was going to take over. But it can't even do basic Maths.
AI HAS taken over.
Leon is on a beach in .... somewhere.
There's a connected laptop somewhere in North London.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
I'm reluctant to re-open old pus-ridden, weeping sores, but the jury is STILL out on lab leak and may never report back to the court.
I think its fair to say that you called the disruption coming over covid pretty well (or at least someone with a very similar posting style did) and that landed said person the use of a 'cowards hole' in SE Wales for the duration. But other things you claim remain at the status of claim. The necklace? What proof is there for that? W3W - busted. Lab-leak - plausible, but not decided.
And none of it matters. This is just the random typings of randoms on the internet, most of us anonymous, most who have never met in real life and half no intention of doing so.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
I’d stop digging, if I were you. Aside from displaying your insensitivity and boorishness and lack of genuine self-confidence, by continually trying to put yourself on a higher plane than your fellow PB’ers - almost all of whom are actually a pretty intelligent and insightful bunch - you simply prove both your ignorance and a decidedly unsavoury contempt for those around you.
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.
I don't think that is uncommon. People who have generic racist views aren't always racists to individuals of a different race they know or are introduced to. Some are obviously. My father was as racist as they came but he had a Nigerian neighbour followed by Sri Lankan neighbours. He got on like a house on fire with them all, although he could be embarrassing sometimes with his views, which they politely ignored. Also his Doctor was Asian. Same again.
In the 70s as a student I worked in a factory There was a significant group of Asians. The white workforce was incredibly racist, but the Asians they worked with were ok in their eyes. Somehow the ones they know are fine, but the ones you don't know aren't. Weird.
Trump seems to be in this camp.
Then you get the next level of bigot who hate everyone.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
Ironic, since what you are describing is how the world used to operate when everywhere had absolute monarchs.
It's always struck me as... odd, that some people get so worked up by the title of "King", but are relaxed about Presidents who are monarchs in all but name, or holders of vast wealth who could field armies out of their resources.
Although, it's also very ancient. It's how the Romans operated.
I'd be happy with King Charles III if I'd had a vote for the position.
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.
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.
I totally understand their thinking. I just think they're wrong. Am I not allowed to say that?
Of course you are allowed to say that. You like immigration but others don't. It really is that simple.
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.
This isn't true if you are talking the UK
interchange fees on personal cards were capped almost 10 years ago to 0.3% in the EU In the USA those fees are closer to 2% Ok there are other fees for the card reader etc, but the merchant costs are massively less than the USA
UK credit card companies make far more in interest.
There is roughly £70bn of balance on credit cards at any one time. Some will be on low or zero rate, but much will be racking up eye watering interest. Banks probably write off £1.2bn of credit card debt a year but still massive juice for them in 25% interest rates.
You get one lens on that from seeing how much money is spent on points and marketing incentives.
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?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
This is true. Its almost worth borrowing a loan and repaying as it improves the chances of other lending. Weird.
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
To be fair that describes pretty much everyone on here.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
Ironic, since what you are describing is how the world used to operate when everywhere had absolute monarchs.
It's always struck me as... odd, that some people get so worked up by the title of "King", but are relaxed about Presidents who are monarchs in all but name, or holders of vast wealth who could field armies out of their resources.
Although, it's also very ancient. It's how the Romans operated.
I'd be happy with King Charles III if I'd had a vote for the position.
Come to think of it, Crassus actually said, you could not consider yourself truly rich until you could raise and equip a legion from your own resources.
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
Probably fair just as it's possible to argue any Conservative would have struggled against Starmer this year. As the saying goes, Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them and as we've seen elsewhere, incumbency post-Covid has proved highly problematic. Even in places like India and Japan with entrenched Governments, the incumbents have suffered big losses.
Look at Botswana the other day - the ruling party reduced from 38 to 4.
The incoming Governments of all stripes and none now have to show they can govern - we'll see in the next two or three years how they are managing. The signs are mixed and it may be we are now in a period of huge volatility in all democracies as increasingly angry and frustrated electorates demand "change" from Governments unable to deliver that change (or even understand what that change is or represents).
@Leon and others will argue that leads to "hard right" Government (really don't know what means) but when that fails to deliver as well, as it will, what then?
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.
I don't think that is uncommon. People who have generic racist views aren't always racists to individuals of a different race they know or are introduced to. Some are obviously. My father was as racist as they came but he had a Nigerian neighbour followed by Sri Lankan neighbours. He got on like a house on fire with them all, although he could be embarrassing sometimes with his views, which they politely ignored. Also his Doctor was Asian. Same again.
In the 70s as a student I worked in a factory There was a significant group of Asians. The white workforce was incredibly racist, but the Asians they worked with were ok in their eyes. Somehow the ones they know are fine, but the ones you don't know aren't. Weird.
Trump seems to be in this camp.
Then you get the next level of bigot who hate everyone.
Yeah my wife remembers being told by a kid at school in the 1980s that "my dad hates p*kis but you're ok". The kid's dad was, of course, a copper.
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.
I don't think that is uncommon. People who have generic racist views aren't always racists to individuals of a different race they know or are introduced to. Some are obviously. My father was as racist as they came but he had a Nigerian neighbour followed by Sri Lankan neighbours. He got on like a house on fire with them all, although he could be embarrassing sometimes with his views, which they politely ignored. Also his Doctor was Asian. Same again.
In the 70s as a student I worked in a factory There was a significant group of Asians. The white workforce was incredibly racist, but the Asians they worked with were ok in their eyes. Somehow the ones they know are fine, but the ones you don't know aren't. Weird.
Trump seems to be in this camp.
Then you get the next level of bigot who hate everyone.
See also (sadly) Nazi Germany and the marginalization and extermination of the Jews. "I understand that all Jews are Scum, but this fellow, he fought on the Western Front with me, and he's a top chap..."
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
Leon you said that AI was going to take over. But it can't even do basic Maths.
AI HAS taken over.
Leon is on a beach in .... somewhere.
The two are not exclusive, AI might take over despite not being able to do basic maths. For reference see "outsourcing" which has taken over despite not providing the same level of service in many cases.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
Leon you said that AI was going to take over. But it can't even do basic Maths.
AI HAS taken over.
Leon is on a beach in .... somewhere.
The two are not exclusive, AI might take over despite not being able to do basic maths. For reference see "outsourcing" which has taken over despite not providing the same level of service in many cases.
But he said it would exceed human abilities in the next very short timeframe, leading to the loss of millions of jobs.
I have pointed out to him that I work in software engineering and with AI every day. I explained why I think his hypothesis is wrong and he never tried to counter me with anything.
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?
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
It may be increasingly true of some countries - the US is certainly one - but I don't think that model describes genuine dictatorships like Russia or China. In those places, there are no oligarchs. There are some very rich men (always men) who align themselves with the sovereign and have licence to become very wealthy but that licence is always contingent on support for the regime. Cross it, try to exercise independent power, and the security services (or tax office or other legal powers) will see to it that your fall will be swift and decisive. Sometimes literally.
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.
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.
MBNA and Lloyds are the same.
Barclaycard commonly turn down people with excellent credit records or give them ludicrous low spending limits.
Of course the previous batch of right on proto-socialists tried to introduce "Income Tax on Land" in the 1910 Finance Act. They had maps of every farm drawn up and forms to fill out. On these forms you could claim a reduction if there was a PROW through your farm so these maps are still used to check for this. However, the ploy did not work and it was 1925 before the money raised paid for drawing the maps.
When the stupidity of this was remarked on in O Level History our teacher commented that he had never voted for the government or party in question.
It didn't raise much money (and wasn't meant to), but by provoking the unelected hereditary landowners in the HoL to strike down a money bill it was directly responsible for the successful introduction of the Parliament Act. This, in turn, cleared the constitutional mess which had blocked almost all social and constitutional legislation for the past 35 years.
Your teacher may have termed it "stupidity", but we'd be living in a very different country without it.
Interesting to hear that you class Winston Churchill (who, as President of the Board of Trade, was responsible for the implementation of the Undeveloped Land and Mineral Rights duties) as a 'right on proto-socialist', though.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
True, but I continually learn things on PB too. There is a lot of knowledge on here. Yes we often tend to have fixed views about stuff but we should aim to be open to being wrong, or change our minds.
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.
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.
I totally understand their thinking. I just think they're wrong. Am I not allowed to say that?
Of course you are allowed to say that. You like immigration but others don't. It really is that simple.
That is different from shutting down the debate.
I am not a fan of shutting down the debate but I do think that it is up to the people who put in the effort running this forum to decide how much tiring racist shit they can tolerate. I'm not going to express a view either way and have never called for anyone to be banned. I do think that people who commit or incite acts of violence need to face the legal system even if it evident that many of them are rather sad and confused individuals rather than committed extremists.
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.
They need to buy an upgraded account from Twitter so they can fit more of it in .
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.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
Ironic, since what you are describing is how the world used to operate when everywhere had absolute monarchs.
It's always struck me as... odd, that some people get so worked up by the title of "King", but are relaxed about Presidents who are monarchs in all but name, or holders of vast wealth who could field armies out of their resources.
Although, it's also very ancient. It's how the Romans operated.
I'd be happy with King Charles III if I'd had a vote for the position.
Come to think of it, Crassus actually said, you could not consider yourself truly rich until you could raise and equip a legion from your own resources.
I wonder if he was thinking he shouldn't have bothered as the molten gold poured into his mouth?
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.
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.
I totally understand their thinking. I just think they're wrong. Am I not allowed to say that?
Of course you are allowed to say that. You like immigration but others don't. It really is that simple.
That is different from shutting down the debate.
Also, there is a difference between saying 'I think they're wrong' and believing that 'because my view is superior to theirs it should outweigh theirs'. I mean, OLB's view is superior to Leon's but, unless those who see the world in OLB's way (a view I share) can convince enough other people of their view then it shouldn't prevail.
I think too many of us have taken our eye off the ball in allowing unchallenged a public discourse whether 'others' are scapegoated for problems of our own making. And it's coming back to bite us in the bum.
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.
I don't think that is uncommon. People who have generic racist views aren't always racists to individuals of a different race they know or are introduced to. Some are obviously. My father was as racist as they came but he had a Nigerian neighbour followed by Sri Lankan neighbours. He got on like a house on fire with them all, although he could be embarrassing sometimes with his views, which they politely ignored. Also his Doctor was Asian. Same again.
In the 70s as a student I worked in a factory There was a significant group of Asians. The white workforce was incredibly racist, but the Asians they worked with were ok in their eyes. Somehow the ones they know are fine, but the ones you don't know aren't. Weird.
Trump seems to be in this camp.
Then you get the next level of bigot who hate everyone.
See also (sadly) Nazi Germany and the marginalization and extermination of the Jews. "I understand that all Jews are Scum, but this fellow, he fought on the Western Front with me, and he's a top chap..."
Himmler even addresses that point in his Posen speeches. How people will say that the Jews are vermin, but they all know at least one Jew who's a splendid chap, not like the others.
Even Hitler arranged for his family's Jewish doctor and his family to emigrate from Austria with their possessions.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. There are large numbers of European-British second generation people in London, for instance, who didn't mark the dubious "White British", which should really have been White Angloceltic, category in the census.
I've obviously met people from Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and the Caucuses who look more "white" than some English people. These are not genuinely scientific categories.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
Ironic, since what you are describing is how the world used to operate when everywhere had absolute monarchs.
It's always struck me as... odd, that some people get so worked up by the title of "King", but are relaxed about Presidents who are monarchs in all but name, or holders of vast wealth who could field armies out of their resources.
Although, it's also very ancient. It's how the Romans operated.
I'd be happy with King Charles III if I'd had a vote for the position.
Come to think of it, Crassus actually said, you could not consider yourself truly rich until you could raise and equip a legion from your own resources.
I wonder if he was thinking he shouldn't have bothered as the molten gold poured into his mouth?
The Parthians certainly were giving him an attitude-adjustment.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
It may be increasingly true of some countries - the US is certainly one - but I don't think that model describes genuine dictatorships like Russia or China. In those places, there are no oligarchs. There are some very rich men (always men) who align themselves with the sovereign and have licence to become very wealthy but that licence is always contingent on support for the regime. Cross it, try to exercise independent power, and the security services (or tax office or other legal powers) will see to it that your fall will be swift and decisive. Sometimes literally.
Just as no-one with any ambition would want to get on the wrong side of Henry VIII.
You really do wonder whether the later 20th Century will come to be seen as a relatively egalitarian and meritocratic aberration from the normal state of human affairs.
And so how lucky we ordinary mortals are to have been born into such a time.
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.
This isn't true if you are talking the UK
interchange fees on personal cards were capped almost 10 years ago to 0.3% in the EU In the USA those fees are closer to 2% Ok there are other fees for the card reader etc, but the merchant costs are massively less than the USA
UK credit card companies make far more in interest.
There is roughly £70bn of balance on credit cards at any one time. Some will be on low or zero rate, but much will be racking up eye watering interest. Banks probably write off £1.2bn of credit card debt a year but still massive juice for them in 25% interest rates.
You get one lens on that from seeing how much money is spent on points and marketing incentives.
Indeed. You could probably get close to 1m air miles in about 6 months in the USA if signing up to enough cards.
You might be able to get maybe 150k avios in the UK
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
The risk is that George Bush Jnr is nothing like Trump. Trump you can be his bestie until he gets up one day you are "the worst person ever, a loser, a mean person", because you offended his ego. Bush seems to form friendship with people that last i.e. like normal people and often with surprising folk e.g. He seems to get on well with other former presidents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. There are large numbers of European-British second generation people in London, for instance, who didn't mark the dubious "White British", which should really have been White Angloceltic, category in the census.
I've obviously met people from Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and the Caucuses who look more "white" than some English people. These are not genuinely scientific categories.
Plenty of Persians and Northern Indians look entirely European.
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.
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.
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?
I never said anything about what colour British babies should be. Just that some babies are "white", as everybody was 100 years ago; the default position. And others have more pigment in their skin. I don't think that saying that is in any way racist. If a poster on PB wishes to make a distinction between two groups, I do not see that that is inherently racist.
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
For all its immense power, even under Trump the US is going to want friends. The challenge for Starmer and the government will be how to court the new Administration without leaking votes to the left. The Tories going full on MAGA might help on that front. For me, the smart Tory move would be to the back the government on this front rather than demand it goes further in seeking a deeper relationship.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
This might be what you intend of course but I think what irks most people (certainly me) is you saying something along the lines of:
'I am often right'
The other is referring to your IQ.
I am not annoyed that you might be often right or may have a high IQ but that you feel the need to say it. Nobody else does. Now of course that might be what you intend, but 'Why?'
If you want another it is the boasting about places you stay eg it costs £2500, or whatever. I don't care and I don't know why you do it. I want to know about where you are staying and the meals and the pictures and also whether it is cheap or expensive, but not the boasting. Yes by all means tell us about a £2500/night room, and tell us it costs this, but not boasting about it. Most, if not all of us don't give two hoots and wouldn't do it ourselves, but enjoy living vicariously through you.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
It may be increasingly true of some countries - the US is certainly one - but I don't think that model describes genuine dictatorships like Russia or China. In those places, there are no oligarchs. There are some very rich men (always men) who align themselves with the sovereign and have licence to become very wealthy but that licence is always contingent on support for the regime. Cross it, try to exercise independent power, and the security services (or tax office or other legal powers) will see to it that your fall will be swift and decisive. Sometimes literally.
Just as no-one with any ambition would want to get on the wrong side of Henry VIII.
You really do wonder whether the later 20th Century will come to be seen as a relatively egalitarian and meritocratic aberration from the normal state of human affairs.
I often find myself wondering if 50 years from now, people will look back on our experiment with democracy the same way that the ancients looked back on the Greeks' experiments with it. A nice idea, but it couldn't last.
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
For all its immense power, even under Trump the US is going to want friends. The challenge for Starmer and the government will be how to court the new Administration without leaking votes to the left. The Tories going full on MAGA might help on that front. For me, the smart Tory move would be to the back the government on this front rather than demand it goes further in seeking a deeper relationship.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
I think what people appreciate is other people being interested in why they think they are right.
I do think I can sometimes elicit more interesting responses by asking questions than by simply stating a contrary view.
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
For all its immense power, even under Trump the US is going to want friends. The challenge for Starmer and the government will be how to court the new Administration without leaking votes to the left. The Tories going full on MAGA might help on that front. For me, the smart Tory move would be to the back the government on this front rather than demand it goes further in seeking a deeper relationship.
Jonathan Powell to be US ambassador?
Too high a risk he’d end up giving Scotland to Trump.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
Yes, I've always thought that.
I suppose it is a virtue to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong.
But the person complaining "you always think you're right" is not necessarily any more virtuous in this regard than the person being complained about. The complaint could more accurately be "you disagree with me."
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
It may be increasingly true of some countries - the US is certainly one - but I don't think that model describes genuine dictatorships like Russia or China. In those places, there are no oligarchs. There are some very rich men (always men) who align themselves with the sovereign and have licence to become very wealthy but that licence is always contingent on support for the regime. Cross it, try to exercise independent power, and the security services (or tax office or other legal powers) will see to it that your fall will be swift and decisive. Sometimes literally.
Just as no-one with any ambition would want to get on the wrong side of Henry VIII.
You really do wonder whether the later 20th Century will come to be seen as a relatively egalitarian and meritocratic aberration from the normal state of human affairs.
I often find myself wondering if 50 years from now, people will look back on our experiment with democracy the same way that the ancients looked back on the Greeks' experiments with it. A nice idea, but it couldn't last.
I think Churchill's quote about democracy being the worst form of government is apt.
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.
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.
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?
I never said anything about what colour British babies should be. Just that some babies are "white", as everybody was 100 years ago; the default position. And others have more pigment in their skin. I don't think that saying that is in any way racist. If a poster on PB wishes to make a distinction between two groups, I do not see that that is inherently racist.
Might be wise to leave this conversation alone or have it in the toilets before the ban hammer comes down again. Various legitimate viewpoints are available.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
It may be increasingly true of some countries - the US is certainly one - but I don't think that model describes genuine dictatorships like Russia or China. In those places, there are no oligarchs. There are some very rich men (always men) who align themselves with the sovereign and have licence to become very wealthy but that licence is always contingent on support for the regime. Cross it, try to exercise independent power, and the security services (or tax office or other legal powers) will see to it that your fall will be swift and decisive. Sometimes literally.
Just as no-one with any ambition would want to get on the wrong side of Henry VIII.
You really do wonder whether the later 20th Century will come to be seen as a relatively egalitarian and meritocratic aberration from the normal state of human affairs.
I often find myself wondering if 50 years from now, people will look back on our experiment with democracy the same way that the ancients looked back on the Greeks' experiments with it. A nice idea, but it couldn't last.
And it’s tragic that it’s the US that is making us ask such questions, when, standing back, it’s the historical exemplar in giving its citizens the freedom to act, both socially and economically, in a way that has created the world’s most powerful - physically and culturally - polity, from a wilderness originally inhabited by - greatly traduced - hunter-gatherers.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
Another response my wife finds irritating is when she says:
'You never listen to me' and I respond with 'That is an odd way to start a conversation'
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
Trouble is I often am right, maybe more often than not. And that annoys people
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
This might be what you intend of course but I think what irks most people (certainly me) is you saying something along the lines of:
'I am often right'
The other is referring to your IQ.
I am not annoyed that you might be often right or may have a high IQ but that you feel the need to say it. Nobody else does. Now of course that might be what you intend, but 'Why?'
If you want another it is the boasting about places you stay eg it costs £2500, or whatever. I don't care and I don't know why you do it. I want to know about where you are staying and the meals and the pictures and also whether it is cheap or expensive, but not the boasting. Yes by all means tell us about a £2500/night room, and tell us it costs this, but not boasting about it. Most, if not all of us don't give two hoots and wouldn't do it ourselves, but enjoy living vicariously through you.
It’s pretty obvious he needs a psychiatrist more than he needs PB. And he surely has the means to afford one.
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.
I don't think that is uncommon. People who have generic racist views aren't always racists to individuals of a different race they know or are introduced to. Some are obviously. My father was as racist as they came but he had a Nigerian neighbour followed by Sri Lankan neighbours. He got on like a house on fire with them all, although he could be embarrassing sometimes with his views, which they politely ignored. Also his Doctor was Asian. Same again.
In the 70s as a student I worked in a factory There was a significant group of Asians. The white workforce was incredibly racist, but the Asians they worked with were ok in their eyes. Somehow the ones they know are fine, but the ones you don't know aren't. Weird.
Trump seems to be in this camp.
Then you get the next level of bigot who hate everyone.
Yeah my wife remembers being told by a kid at school in the 1980s that "my dad hates p*kis but you're ok". The kid's dad was, of course, a copper.
CNN are saying that Harris still hasn't spoken to Trump. Not clear if that is because Trump isn't willing to take the call or Harris won't make the call.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
It may be increasingly true of some countries - the US is certainly one - but I don't think that model describes genuine dictatorships like Russia or China. In those places, there are no oligarchs. There are some very rich men (always men) who align themselves with the sovereign and have licence to become very wealthy but that licence is always contingent on support for the regime. Cross it, try to exercise independent power, and the security services (or tax office or other legal powers) will see to it that your fall will be swift and decisive. Sometimes literally.
Just as no-one with any ambition would want to get on the wrong side of Henry VIII.
You really do wonder whether the later 20th Century will come to be seen as a relatively egalitarian and meritocratic aberration from the normal state of human affairs.
I often find myself wondering if 50 years from now, people will look back on our experiment with democracy the same way that the ancients looked back on the Greeks' experiments with it. A nice idea, but it couldn't last.
And it’s tragic that it’s the US that is making us ask such questions, when, standing back, it’s the historical exemplar in giving its citizens the freedom to act, both socially and economically, in a way that has created the world’s most powerful - physically and culturally - polity, from a wilderness originally inhabited by - greatly traduced - hunter-gatherers.
The real threat to democracy seems to be that the people could lose the confidence of their superiors if they persist in voting the wrong way.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
I think what people appreciate is other people being interested in why they think they are right.
I do think I can sometimes elicit more interesting responses by asking questions than by simply stating a contrary view.
Thinking about it, I am relieved the result was so clearcut and quick to be known. There is absolutely no room for doubt: the US wanted Trump; it was a positive vote for massive change. This level of clarity is important. You play the hand you are given and we know very clearly what is in front of us. That is a good thing.
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
Another response my wife finds irritating is when she says:
'You never listen to me' and I respond with 'That is an odd way to start a conversation'
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.
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 think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
To be fair that describes pretty much everyone on here.
Not me. I merely want to continually assert that I am centre
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
For all its immense power, even under Trump the US is going to want friends. The challenge for Starmer and the government will be how to court the new Administration without leaking votes to the left. The Tories going full on MAGA might help on that front. For me, the smart Tory move would be to the back the government on this front rather than demand it goes further in seeking a deeper relationship.
Jonathan Powell to be US ambassador?
I hope the current one stays on for a bit - at least for the first year of Trump 2.0.
Thinking about it, I am relieved the result was so clearcut and quick to be known. There is absolutely no room for doubt: the US wanted Trump; it was a positive vote for massive change. This level of clarity is important. You play the hand you are given and we know very clearly what is in front of us. That is a good thing.
I shocked and somewhat saddened to hear CNN were still wittering on about he didn't really have a mandate. They need to get past that nonsense and hold him to account for his policy actions.
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.
And whilst I do not wish for or want to predict a souring in US/UK relations, I would mention it came before Starmer then sanctioned the activities of Labour staffers door knocking for Kamala.
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?
Can that be done at State level?
In theory yes, but requires the state legislatures to be not totally bought by the pharma companies.
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.
And whilst I do not wish for or want to predict a souring in US/UK relations, I would mention it came before Starmer then sanctioned the activities of Labour staffers door knocking for Kamala.
If you read the article, that's not what happened.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
"Well that's great, that's just f***in' great, man! Now what the f*** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now, man... That's it, man, game over, man, game over! What the f*** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
Harris went backwards 7 points with college-educated white women. Trump plus 2 with all women from 2020. wherever the "women will save America" stuff came from, it never materialized.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Here that result would take you to a hung Parliament and a week or two of negotiations leading to a weak coalition.
That's yet another problem with the Presidential system - it's winner take all, whether the win is by one EC vote or 400. Our system is much better in that respect.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
Polarisation. This wasn't the case under say Reagan, people were winning by healthy margins.
Lots of people now are locked in, they will only vote Republican never Democrat and vice versa, or sit on their hands. A large chunk are still voting for x, despite the candidate and you don't really have the opportunity to do a Lib Dem protest vote.
The exit poll said 80% of people had decided their vote by the end of September. I think it was only 2-3% who were still deciding in the last few days of the election.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
A recent pattern based on an evenly divided country with neither party having total control for more than two years and so little getting done
Previously when the parties were much broader there were much greater swings - see the variations from 1948 through to 1992.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
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
Scale of his victory? Not sure that's true looking at the figures.
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.
I think Sir Keir is planning to do a Blair: form a warm and loving relationship with a right-wing US president. That certainly annoyed the transatlantic Tories at the time: 'That should be us doing that. Not him!' And what if Sir Keir achieves the mythical US trade deal? Kemi would need to pack up and go home in that situation.
Actually Labour and Keir "Peoples Vote" Starmar doing a trade deal with Trump would be the final, unequivocal signal that Brexit will never be reserved and it's time for Remainers/Rejoiners to move on...
Comments
We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds.
The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
The Trump Transition Team will also be interesting as a clue to the possible members of his Cabinet.
interchange fees on personal cards were capped almost 10 years ago to 0.3% in the EU
In the USA those fees are closer to 2%
Ok there are other fees for the card reader etc, but the merchant costs are massively less than the USA
UK credit card companies make far more in interest.
There is roughly £70bn of balance on credit cards at any one time. Some will be on low or zero rate, but much will be racking up eye watering interest.
Banks probably write off £1.2bn of credit card debt a year but still massive juice for them in 25% interest rates.
Not always right, of course. But enough that it irks
Even more annoyingly, I can often be right in fields outside my speciality, where others feel they have superior knowledge. I recall my many debates with you on the lab leak hypothesis
As you say, there's a huge amount of analysis to be done as to what happened and why it happened. To be fair, we are still going through the entrails of our own fascinating election but instant analysis is de rigueur these days.
One wonders how the Guardian will fare with respect to the Trump dynasty.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Although, it's also very ancient. It's how the Romans operated.
Leon is on a beach in .... somewhere.
There's a connected laptop somewhere in North London.
I think its fair to say that you called the disruption coming over covid pretty well (or at least someone with a very similar posting style did) and that landed said person the use of a 'cowards hole' in SE Wales for the duration. But other things you claim remain at the status of claim. The necklace? What proof is there for that? W3W - busted. Lab-leak - plausible, but not decided.
And none of it matters. This is just the random typings of randoms on the internet, most of us anonymous, most who have never met in real life and half no intention of doing so.
In the 70s as a student I worked in a factory There was a significant group of Asians. The white workforce was incredibly racist, but the Asians they worked with were ok in their eyes. Somehow the ones they know are fine, but the ones you don't know aren't. Weird.
Trump seems to be in this camp.
Then you get the next level of bigot who hate everyone.
That is different from shutting down the debate.
Look at Botswana the other day - the ruling party reduced from 38 to 4.
The incoming Governments of all stripes and none now have to show they can govern - we'll see in the next two or three years how they are managing. The signs are mixed and it may be we are now in a period of huge volatility in all democracies as increasingly angry and frustrated electorates demand "change" from Governments unable to deliver that change (or even understand what that change is or represents).
@Leon and others will argue that leads to "hard right" Government (really don't know what means) but when that fails to deliver as well, as it will, what then?
The kid's dad was, of course, a copper.
For reference see "outsourcing" which has taken over despite not providing the same level of service in many cases.
I have pointed out to him that I work in software engineering and with AI every day. I explained why I think his hypothesis is wrong and he never tried to counter me with anything.
Barclaycard commonly turn down people with excellent credit records or give them ludicrous low spending limits.
Your teacher may have termed it "stupidity", but we'd be living in a very different country without it.
Interesting to hear that you class Winston Churchill (who, as President of the Board of Trade, was responsible for the implementation of the Undeveloped Land and Mineral Rights duties) as a 'right on proto-socialist', though.
I think too many of us have taken our eye off the ball in allowing unchallenged a public discourse whether 'others' are scapegoated for problems of our own making. And it's coming back to bite us in the bum.
Even Hitler arranged for his family's Jewish doctor and his family to emigrate from Austria with their possessions.
I've obviously met people from Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and the Caucuses who look more "white" than some English people. These are not genuinely scientific categories.
It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
You really do wonder whether the later 20th Century will come to be seen as a relatively egalitarian and meritocratic aberration from the normal state of human affairs.
And so how lucky we ordinary mortals are to have been born into such a time.
You could probably get close to 1m air miles in about 6 months in the USA if signing up to enough cards.
You might be able to get maybe 150k avios in the UK
'I am often right'
The other is referring to your IQ.
I am not annoyed that you might be often right or may have a high IQ but that you feel the need to say it. Nobody else does. Now of course that might be what you intend, but 'Why?'
If you want another it is the boasting about places you stay eg it costs £2500, or whatever. I don't care and I don't know why you do it. I want to know about where you are staying and the meals and the pictures and also whether it is cheap or expensive, but not the boasting. Yes by all means tell us about a £2500/night room, and tell us it costs this, but not boasting about it. Most, if not all of us don't give two hoots and wouldn't do it ourselves, but enjoy living vicariously through you.
I do think I can sometimes elicit more interesting responses by asking questions than by simply stating a contrary view.
I suppose it is a virtue to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong.
But the person complaining "you always think you're right" is not necessarily any more virtuous in this regard than the person being complained about. The complaint could more accurately be "you disagree with me."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxTVnAiSOU4
'You never listen to me' and I respond with 'That is an odd way to start a conversation'
Harris to speak at 4pm ET (4hrs time).
And whilst I do not wish for or want to predict a souring in US/UK relations, I would mention it came before Starmer then sanctioned the activities of Labour staffers door knocking for Kamala.
That's yet another problem with the Presidential system - it's winner take all, whether the win is by one EC vote or 400. Our system is much better in that respect.
Lots of people now are locked in, they will only vote Republican never Democrat and vice versa, or sit on their hands. A large chunk are still voting for x, despite the candidate and you don't really have the opportunity to do a Lib Dem protest vote.
The exit poll said 80% of people had decided their vote by the end of September. I think it was only 2-3% who were still deciding in the last few days of the election.
Previously when the parties were much broader there were much greater swings - see the variations from 1948 through to 1992.
Actually Labour and Keir "Peoples Vote" Starmar doing a trade deal with Trump would be the final, unequivocal signal that Brexit will never be reserved and it's time for Remainers/Rejoiners to move on...
Can't see it happening though.