I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Yes he was, it was Boris' charisma that got Leave over the line with working class voters in 2016 and again for the Tories in 2019.
Had Cameron been facing Farage or Gove as Leave frontman in 2016 Remain would likely have narrowly won
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
IANAL but IIUC Trump has no power to change the law in this regard, so his order is as binding on the courts as an order by me. But I guess it's possible that a publisher might say, "we're not 100% sure that the courts will agree that this order isn't binding, so let's do x, y and z in the meantime".
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.
Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
I don’t like Facebook being able to restrict the ability of one candidate to compete as they see fit.
In many ways the likes of Facebook and Google have become public utilities and should be regulated as such.
But they are not restricting one candidate. They are removing one ad that they consider oversteps their redlines. If Trump's team upload an acceptable ad it will be published. Most of media works this way.
Indeed. Bizarre argument really.
No. The redlines should be “is it legal” and “is it within the electoral rules”
Facebook has no right to decide to take down political advertising based on its own subjective criteria.
I would say that’s as bad as the Koch brothers pouring money into SuperPACs to try and distort the political landscape
Why? Literally every media outlet I have ever dealt with has its own content guidelines. Why should Facebook be any different? Absolutely bizarre discussion.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
A private entity is having a significant influence on the ability of one candidate to campaign as they see fit. That’s a distortion of democracy.
You could say the same of any newspaper. Absolutely bizarre argument.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Facebook haven't prevented it from being published.
Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.
Somehow, someway the Dems seem to have lucked on the best candidate for right here, right now. The most boring after a year of pandemic panic. The least Socialist in economic turmoil. The least "woke" in a turbulent, divided society. And the one most likely to respond to a slap in the face with a well placed head butt.
I suspect what has turned the markets has been the Florida situation. Trumpton hasn’t led there since March.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
Facebook, Twitter etc have a carve out protecting them from liability in what they put on their site because they are merely a conduit, not a publisher. Once they start deciding what to put on the site, you are de facto a publisher and the carve out protection goes away.
So you are proposing they have to accept every ad offered to them, regardless of its content, as long as someone somewhere deems it legal?
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.
Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
I don’t like Facebook being able to restrict the ability of one candidate to compete as they see fit.
In many ways the likes of Facebook and Google have become public utilities and should be regulated as such.
But they are not restricting one candidate. They are removing one ad that they consider oversteps their redlines. If Trump's team upload an acceptable ad it will be published. Most of media works this way.
Indeed. Bizarre argument really.
No. The redlines should be “is it legal” and “is it within the electoral rules”
Facebook has no right to decide to take down political advertising based on its own subjective criteria.
I would say that’s as bad as the Koch brothers pouring money into SuperPACs to try and distort the political landscape
Why? Literally every media outlet I have ever dealt with has its own content guidelines. Why should Facebook be any different? Absolutely bizarre discussion.
This only matter because a large part of the electorate (that sucking in social media) is brain dead. But, hey, that's democracy.
Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.
Somehow, someway the Dems seem to have lucked on the best candidate for right here, right now. The most boring after a year of pandemic panic. The least Socialist in economic turmoil. The least "woke" in a turbulent, divided society. And the one most likely to respond to a slap in the face with a well placed head butt.
I suspect what has turned the markets has been the Florida situation. Trumpton hasn’t led there since March.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.
Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
That's not strictly true. Facebook claims to be a platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act over which it exercises some editorial control. I.e, it will seek to remove posts that are defamatory or which break its terms of service. That is - of course - the same rules that any other platform (and that includes the comment sections under Fox News stories) use.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
Facebook, Twitter etc have a carve out protecting them from liability in what they put on their site because they are merely a conduit, not a publisher. Once they start deciding what to put on the site, you are de facto a publisher and the carve out protection goes away.
So you are proposing they have to accept every ad offered to them, regardless of its content, as long as someone somewhere seems it legal?
A lie is alright because it accepts advertising, right?
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
Trump can take the battle to court if he likes. He might even win. But I think the traditional media would be very unhappy with a situation where they had to accept advertising and they weren't allowed their own terms and conditions.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.
Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
That's not strictly true. Facebook claims to be a platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act over which it exercises some editorial control. I.e, it will seek to remove posts that are defamatory or which break its terms of service. That is - of course - the same rules that any other platform (and that includes the comment sections under Fox News stories) use.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Yes he was, it was Boris' charisma that got Leave over the line with working class voters in 2016 and again for the Tories in 2019.
Had Cameron been facing Farage or Gove as Leave frontman in 2016 Remain would likely have narrowly won
Who cares. We will never know. What we do know is that if Boris is still PM in 2024 then I think Starmer is the most likely winner.
Edit. It is also worth pointing out that given you voted Remain I am not sure you are the best placed person to say why Leave won and what influenced Leave voters.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.
Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
That's not strictly true. Facebook claims to be a platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act over which it exercises some editorial control. I.e, it will seek to remove posts that are defamatory or which break its terms of service. That is - of course - the same rules that any other platform (and that includes the comment sections under Fox News stories) use.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Yes he was, it was Boris' charisma that got Leave over the line with working class voters in 2016 and again for the Tories in 2019.
Had Cameron been facing Farage or Gove as Leave frontman in 2016 Remain would likely have narrowly won
Who cares. We will never know. What we do know is that if Boris is still PM in 2024 then I think Starmer is the most likely winner.
Edit. It is also worth pointing out that given you voted Remain I am not sure you are the best placed person to say why Leave won and what influenced Leave voters.
As things stand at the moment, the Tories will have long since said goodbye to Boris. Job done - we've left now let's move on. The electorate is forward not backward looking. You can't change the past.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
Trump can take the battle to court if he likes. He might even win. But I think the traditional media would be very unhappy with a situation where they had to accept advertising and they weren't allowed their own terms and conditions.
I don't think it's that. It is that Facebook would be forced, in open court, to defend its position as to why it should not be treated as any other media company and subject to the same regulations against a DoJ that would be claiming it was a publisher. I don't think that is a battle Facebook wants to get intoi it.
As for the traditional media, they are desperate (print revenues have collapsed as have TV ad revenues etc etc). Even if they do not like Trump, they will do what it takes to secure their position.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Yes he was, it was Boris' charisma that got Leave over the line with working class voters in 2016 and again for the Tories in 2019.
Had Cameron been facing Farage or Gove as Leave frontman in 2016 Remain would likely have narrowly won
Who cares. We will never know. What we do know is that if Boris is still PM in 2024 then I think Starmer is the most likely winner.
Edit. It is also worth pointing out that given you voted Remain I am not sure you are the best placed person to say why Leave won and what influenced Leave voters.
After 14 years in power it doesn't matter who leads the Tories the odds favour a change of government.
Without Boris it would probably have been 52% Remain 48% Leave or thereabouts, the anti immigration vote and the pro sovereignty vote would still have gone Leave but it was Boris who won the working class waverers for Leave to get them over 50%, how I voted does not change that
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.
Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
That's not strictly true. Facebook claims to be a platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act over which it exercises some editorial control. I.e, it will seek to remove posts that are defamatory or which break its terms of service. That is - of course - the same rules that any other platform (and that includes the comment sections under Fox News stories) use.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
Does that work the other way round?
In what way?
The Voice, say, accepting a plainly white orientated ad. Not KKK just white.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
The current PM vs LotO match up seems a lot like Cameron vs Miliband to me. The PB consensus leans to the PM being lazy, unprepared and what have you, and the earnest LotO being able to best him at the GE via coalitions etc. But when it comes to a campaign I just don't think Starmer will have the pizazz, and fir all the 'this time it'll be different' talk, it never really is.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.
Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
That's not strictly true. Facebook claims to be a platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act over which it exercises some editorial control. I.e, it will seek to remove posts that are defamatory or which break its terms of service. That is - of course - the same rules that any other platform (and that includes the comment sections under Fox News stories) use.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
Does that work the other way round?
In what way?
The Voice, say, accepting a plainly white orientated ad. Not KKK just white.
I was thinking more of a situation where the Conditions said that they didn't accept an advert from a black person owned business.
However, you raise an interesting point, and state by state rules will differ. My guess is that in most states The Voice would not be allowed to reject a white oriented advert.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
Trump can take the battle to court if he likes. He might even win. But I think the traditional media would be very unhappy with a situation where they had to accept advertising and they weren't allowed their own terms and conditions.
I don't think it's that. It is that Facebook would be forced, in open court, to defend its position as to why it should not be treated as any other media company and subject to the same regulations against a DoJ that would be claiming it was a publisher. I don't think that is a battle Facebook wants to get intoi it.
As for the traditional media, they are desperate (print revenues have collapsed as have TV ad revenues etc etc). Even if they do not like Trump, they will do what it takes to secure their position.
I think you're conflating two totally different parts of US law. Discussions about carrying advertising are completely separate to user generated content. The Communications Decency Act, for example, doesn't cover them at all.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
IIUC the Section 230 protections apply whether it's a tech company or a media company, ie the protections that Facebook have when they publish your comment are the same as the protections that Fox News have when they publish your comment under one of their articles.
The CDC has published a helpful list of the high-risk groups. First on the list is people aged 65 and over. Trump is 74. Will he be watching the rally on TV?
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
The current PM vs LotO match up seems a lot like Cameron vs Miliband to me. The PB consensus leans to the PM being lazy, unprepared and what have you, and the earnest LotO being able to best him at the GE via coalitions etc. But when it comes to a campaign I just don't think Starmer will have the pizazz, and fir all the 'this time it'll be different' talk, it never really is.
Starmer is boring and the electorate is not at all interested in detail. Presto, Boris. If it doesn't look like panning out like that then Boris is toast way before any election.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.
Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
That's not strictly true. Facebook claims to be a platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act over which it exercises some editorial control. I.e, it will seek to remove posts that are defamatory or which break its terms of service. That is - of course - the same rules that any other platform (and that includes the comment sections under Fox News stories) use.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
Does that work the other way round?
In what way?
The Voice, say, accepting a plainly white orientated ad. Not KKK just white.
I was thinking more of a situation where the Conditions said that they didn't accept an advert from a black person owned business.
However, you raise an interesting point, and state by state rules will differ. My guess is that in most states The Voice would not be allowed to reject a white oriented advert.
Rules get argued about as we can see here. The racist card is always in the holster.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
Trump can take the battle to court if he likes. He might even win. But I think the traditional media would be very unhappy with a situation where they had to accept advertising and they weren't allowed their own terms and conditions.
I don't think it's that. It is that Facebook would be forced, in open court, to defend its position as to why it should not be treated as any other media company and subject to the same regulations against a DoJ that would be claiming it was a publisher. I don't think that is a battle Facebook wants to get intoi it.
As for the traditional media, they are desperate (print revenues have collapsed as have TV ad revenues etc etc). Even if they do not like Trump, they will do what it takes to secure their position.
I think you're conflating two totally different parts of US law. Discussions about carrying advertising are completely separate to user generated content. The Communications Decency Act, for example, doesn't cover them at all.
The law is secondary here. Once it's out out there, the genies's out of the bottle and "you can't do that any more just pay your fine and don't do it again" doesn't matter a shit.
Why don't they just put that warning on all films and TV shows more than 3 years old? It would save a lot of time.
They slap this sort of stuff all over Netflix and I can't believe anyone is discouraged from watching it, quite the reverse. When I was a kid I tried to get into all of the 18 rated films I could, particularly those with Brigitte Bardot - sexiest lady ever.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
Johnson reaches parts other Tories do not reach. I don't know why, perhaps people like bumbling incompetence. But whether you or I like it or not, a vast swathe of blue collar Britain love the guy. They will not feel the same about Sunak or Raab.
But I suspect the truth of Johnson being a compulsive - and incompetent - liar will become so obvious that only the most ignorant or partisan will be able to deny it. The scales are already falling away from the eyes of many who voted for him.
I don't see that in the circles I converse with. Buyer's remorse has not yet set in.
Why don't they just put that warning on all films and TV shows more than 3 years old? It would save a lot of time.
They slap this sort of stuff all over Netflix and I can't believe anyone is discouraged from watching it, quite the reverse. When I was a kid I tried to get into all of the 18 rated films I could, particularly those with Brigitte Bardot - sexiest lady ever.
Yep, I don't know what teenagers today are like, but I can't imagine anything that would have made the 15-year-old me want to watch a film more than a warning not to.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
Trump can take the battle to court if he likes. He might even win. But I think the traditional media would be very unhappy with a situation where they had to accept advertising and they weren't allowed their own terms and conditions.
I don't think it's that. It is that Facebook would be forced, in open court, to defend its position as to why it should not be treated as any other media company and subject to the same regulations against a DoJ that would be claiming it was a publisher. I don't think that is a battle Facebook wants to get intoi it.
As for the traditional media, they are desperate (print revenues have collapsed as have TV ad revenues etc etc). Even if they do not like Trump, they will do what it takes to secure their position.
I think you're conflating two totally different parts of US law. Discussions about carrying advertising are completely separate to user generated content. The Communications Decency Act, for example, doesn't cover them at all.
The law is secondary here. Once it's out out there, the genies's out of the bottle and "you can't do that any more just pay your fine and don't do it again" doesn't matter a shit.
The genie's been out of the bottle for decades. The law - Section 230 of the CDA - limits the liability of platforms for user generated content.
Now, you could basically say that people who host user generated content aren't allowed to do any moderation at all. Which is fine, but causes big problems with regard to content such as pornography. Or defamatory statements.
Or you could go the other way, and make sites responsible for all the comments posted. Which means that a politicalbetting would need a full time moderator to check on the legality of content before it is allowed to be seen.
Section 230, which is far from perfect, attempts to find a middle ground. You can do moderation, as set out in your Ts&Cs, and you get a moderate degree of cover.
If China is identified as the State Actor behind the ongoing cyber attack on Australia, I think we will accelerate into a cold war situation over the next year. You can forget having supply chains based on Chinese production. You can also expect China to go up the agenda even more in the US elections. Sigh.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.
But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published
Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.
If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.
(Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).
I don't think even the most Republican court in the country would find Trump's EO constitutional. Ultimately, the President can't change laws unilaterally, because that's the job of Congress.
I think more the issue for Facebook is that, by bringing it to court, it brings the whole debate of whether it is a tech company or a media company into the legal realm. Facebook (and all the tech giants) have been very careful to emphasise how they are really technology companies and so avoid regulations. If it goes to court, they will be forced to defend their position against what is increasing evidence they are, in effect, media companies.
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
Trump can take the battle to court if he likes. He might even win. But I think the traditional media would be very unhappy with a situation where they had to accept advertising and they weren't allowed their own terms and conditions.
I don't think it's that. It is that Facebook would be forced, in open court, to defend its position as to why it should not be treated as any other media company and subject to the same regulations against a DoJ that would be claiming it was a publisher. I don't think that is a battle Facebook wants to get intoi it.
As for the traditional media, they are desperate (print revenues have collapsed as have TV ad revenues etc etc). Even if they do not like Trump, they will do what it takes to secure their position.
I think you're conflating two totally different parts of US law. Discussions about carrying advertising are completely separate to user generated content. The Communications Decency Act, for example, doesn't cover them at all.
The law is secondary here. Once it's out out there, the genies's out of the bottle and "you can't do that any more just pay your fine and don't do it again" doesn't matter a shit.
The genie's been out of the bottle for decades. The law - Section 230 of the CDA - limits the liability of platforms for user generated content.
Now, you could basically say that people who host user generated content aren't allowed to do any moderation at all. Which is fine, but causes big problems with regard to content such as pornography. Or defamatory statements.
Or you could go the other way, and make sites responsible for all the comments posted. Which means that a politicalbetting would need a full time moderator to check on the legality of content before it is allowed to be seen.
Section 230, which is far from perfect, attempts to find a middle ground. You can do moderation, as set out in your Ts&Cs, and you get a moderate degree of cover.
All that sounds very complicated — but the question I would ask is: how did we manage before the age of online forums? There must have been a way that people moderated content on the types of media that existed before. It used to be the case that letters to newspapers were moderated by the newspaper editors, and private letters and phone calls weren't moderated at all, unless they were being bugged/intercepted by the security services.
An interesting point is I think it used to be the case that if, say, someone falsely accused another person of being a criminal while sitting in a pub after drinking a lot of alcohol, they wouldn't usually be sued for libel by the person concerned even if they found out about it. It was only if you published it something like a newspaper, magazine, TV show or radio show that it was taken seriously. The problem is that a lot of people post on online forums in the same sort of way that they used to talk in pubs when drunk in the past. But they can get sued because officially it's in writing, although in spirit it's more like chat. Twitter especially.
If China is identified as the State Actor behind the ongoing cyber attack on Australia, I think we will accelerate into a cold war situation over the next year. You can forget having supply chains based on Chinese production. You can also expect China to go up the agenda even more in the US elections. Sigh.
All that sounds very complicated — but the question I would ask is: how did we manage before the age of online forums? There must have been a way that people moderated content on the types of media that existed before. It used to be the case that letters to newspapers were moderated by the newspaper editors, and private letters and phone calls weren't moderated at all, unless they were being bugged/intercepted by the security services.
See here for the situation that Section 230 was introduced to fix:
An internet service provider called CompuServe placed no limits on what its users could post. When someone sued the company for defamation over a statement that another user had posted, the judge dismissed the case, arguing that CompuServe fell into the same legal category as a bookstore or a newsstand — its forums were host to other people’s speech, but it didn’t claim to control that speech in any way.
Offering a contrasting example, an online service called Prodigy actively tried to maintain a family-friendly website with active moderation. Again, a user sued the company over another user’s post, alleging defamation. This time, the judge found Prodigy legally liable. Because the website exercised editorial control, went the ruling, it fell into the same category as a newspaper, making its owner responsible for everything on the site.
The result was a legal regime in which companies were punished for trying to actively remove pornography, violent language, hate speech and the like from their sites, and could reduce their liability by letting anything go.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
All major media platforms spouted non-stop Better Together propaganda during the 6 months leading up to the independence referendum in 2014.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
No it isn't, because public schoolboys don't live at home with dogs. And there's plenty of unfit fatties in their 70s still going strong, just look at Donald Trump. It's not that I have any huge affection for him but I hope he hangs in there long enough for Raab and Patel no longer to be front runners for the succession.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Priti is good value next PM. The others are all flopping.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
All major media platforms spouted non-stop Better Together propaganda during the 6 months leading up to the independence referendum in 2014.
Scotland would have won but for that.
Scottish independence wasn't torpedoed by the dastardly MSM, it was undone by money - primarily the Barnett subsidy, and secondarily the lack of a convincing plan for what currency Scotland was going to use. Your floating voters broke for No because they thought independence would hit them hard in their wallets (possibly through major cuts to public services, so that goodies like free prescriptions, university tuition fees and elderly social care would have to go; more likely through hefty tax rises.)
There are some committed Unionists out there, but I'm convinced that the main thing holding the UK together now is cash. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury, rather than a net beneficiary of it, then the 2014 vote would probably have gone the other way.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
"US top coronavirus expert Dr Anthony Fauci has said there is no need for more widespread lockdowns, despite the country's infection rate remaining high."
It's odd how many people seem shocked that there are people whose beliefs are different to their own. But, given your first post on this thread, I suppose it's down to their living in a bubble. They only interact with people who think as they do.
Further back in this thread there are two US political ads. Joe Biden's has 7,632 people 'talking about it; Trumps 5,760. Does this mean anything? I wonder. Biden's ad is a lot better, of course.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
Sadly I can't go to the pub or other meeting place and chat any more, but I recall shortly after the election remarking to a couple of Tory acquaintances that Johnson was a habitual liar. One of these two (ex-bank manager IIRC) remarked that he didn't really mind that.
Another thought, looking at the Press headlines on the BBC site; the Mail seems to be shifting. Quite an attack on the Govt. this morning.
An interesting point is I think it used to be the case that if, say, someone falsely accused another person of being a criminal while sitting in a pub after drinking a lot of alcohol, they wouldn't usually be sued for libel by the person concerned even if they found out about it. It was only if you published it something like a newspaper, magazine, TV show or radio show that it was taken seriously. The problem is that a lot of people post on online forums in the same sort of way that they used to talk in pubs when drunk in the past. But they can get sued because officially it's in writing, although in spirit it's more like chat. Twitter especially.
its how policing riots works nowadays. Take lots of photos, and pick people up a couple of weeks later.
"If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of eighty years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release" - Not sure the supervised release will be needed in eighty years time!
All that shows is the epidemic gradually moving into the interior - nothing about the gross numbers of cases in any given locality, rate of transmission, proportion of the population infected or anything else is revealed. It's not "astounding." It's not even noteworthy. There's an entire wood full of sticks with which to beat Trump, but this ain't one of them.
CNN: Trump's retreat into an alternate reality, however, won't change the actual reality. No matter how many tweets he send or how many adoring fans he packs into an indoor arena in Tulsa on Saturday, the facts are these: Trump is not only faced with the worst political outlook of his presidency but is also facing signs of a revolt from within his own party and even among those who he once relied on as trusted advisers.
Trump likes to insist that he does best when all is chaos around him and when people are counting him out. Now's his chance to prove it -- because digging out of the hole he has made for himself will be a massive task.
its how policing riots works nowadays. Take lots of photos, and pick people up a couple of weeks later.
"If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of eighty years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release" - Not sure the supervised release will be needed in eighty years time!
That's very ageist! I dare say some centenarians can and do get a bit rowdy. Who knows what kind of mischief Captain Colonel Sir Tom might get up to after a few brandies?
All that shows is the epidemic gradually moving into the interior - nothing about the gross numbers of cases in any given locality, rate of transmission, proportion of the population infected or anything else is revealed. It's not "astounding." It's not even noteworthy. There's an entire wood full of sticks with which to beat Trump, but this ain't one of them.
It’s not astounding, but it is a stark demonstration of the lack of control measures in states which started with a low number of cases.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
Both statements are mostly true but he is also far less popular than he was at the time of the election, and the people who loathe him may well loathe him for his actions and failure re Brexit post the referendum rather than during it.
Shamelessly picking his Brexit side by which is better for his career was one thing, sabotaging and knifing May in the back another which I would view as the far more serious act of disloyalty.
But, I would also still vote for his government if they can show they are effective, and am happy to praise them when they get things right, like the u-turn on school meals or the furlough policy. The problem is there are far too many areas where they have been incompetent so far, the app, testing, communication, schools, care homes just some recent examples.
its how policing riots works nowadays. Take lots of photos, and pick people up a couple of weeks later.
"If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of eighty years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release" - Not sure the supervised release will be needed in eighty years time!
That's very ageist! I dare say some centenarians can and do get a bit rowdy. Who knows what kind of mischief Captain Colonel Sir Tom might get up to after a few brandies?
LOL! Is it the line about Vasquez thinking they meant illegal alien, and signing up?
Because that actually happened. The actress turned up to the auditions assuming Aliens was actually a movie about illegal immigrants in the United States and had dressed accordingly.
“I had seen Alien,” Jenette Goldstein told Starlog magazine, “but I had no idea this was a sequel. It had been so long ago, it didn’t even occur to me. I thought it was about actual aliens, you know, immigrants to a country … I actually came in wearing high heels and lots of makeup, and I had waist-length hair.”
what a bunch of joyless bennies.
Anyway, the upside of all this nonsense is that someone will buy up the 'banned' material and that will be the movie channel/streaming service any sane person will watch. See Talking Pictures for an example.
Or just worried about court cases. ... A number of Tulsa residents and business owners, alarmed by the prospect of a large-scale outbreak of coronavirus if the rally proceeds, have sued the venue manager attempting to block the event unless it is held in accordance with social distancing guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A Tulsa County judge on Tuesday denied the request for a temporary injunction, but the decision was appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court....
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
I loathe him far more for his habitual lying on other issues.
I think this comment below nails it:
"He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade."
A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.” That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412. Why show such ignorance of readily available information?
If the Guardian report is correct, their use of statistics is shaky in other ways as well. For example, they claim 27 seats where no central resources were allocated were lost to the Tories by fewer than 700 votes, including Blyth Valley.
In fact, Labour lost just 8 seats by fewer than 700 votes - Bury North, Kensington, Bury South, Bolton North East, High Peak, Gedling, Haywood and Middleton and Stoke on Trent Central. There were two other seats where the majority was below 1000, Blyth Valley (712) and Delyn (865).
Seats 27 (Peterborough) and above on their target list in terms of swing all have majorities of 2,500+.
Again, this is readily available online. Very careless not to have picked up on it.
That said, the broad thrust of the report’s conclusions as reported make sense. In 2017 they clung on to a lot of formerly very safe seats by very narrow margins, and 2019 gave the push to a tottering edifice.
Kinabalu will be narked at that comment about their private schools non-policy though
All that shows is the epidemic gradually moving into the interior - nothing about the gross numbers of cases in any given locality, rate of transmission, proportion of the population infected or anything else is revealed. It's not "astounding." It's not even noteworthy. There's an entire wood full of sticks with which to beat Trump, but this ain't one of them.
It'll tend to start in the cities because they're more internationally connected so that's where the seed events are, then get everywhere else if left unchecked. Places with a competent response then stop it growing, so except for a few unlucky locations with clusters, it will never reach the rest of the country. This is what we saw in Japan: There were clusters starting mainly in Tokyo, Osaka, and Fukuoka which are internationally connected, and also in Hokkaido through bad luck, but most places are hardly touched - for example, Iwate prefecture still has zero detected cases.
Letting it grow unchecked is a policy choice (by government at all levels) and a lifestyle choice by citizens. The federal government has some responsibility for the policy choice, but the president's leadership also affects the lifestyle choices of his tribe, and the policy choices of the states on his side. Trump has consistently tried to play the problem down, refuses to wear a mask, encouraged lifting the response irresponsibly and encouraged people to protest against the response. We now see the effects of that in the places where people listen to them. He's leading people to their deaths.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
I loathe him far more for his habitual lying on other issues.
I think this comment below nails it:
"He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade."
I've no idea what he smells like, nor do I understand the part about creating mass unemployment or a collapse in international trade.
An interesting point is I think it used to be the case that if, say, someone falsely accused another person of being a criminal while sitting in a pub after drinking a lot of alcohol, they wouldn't usually be sued for libel by the person concerned even if they found out about it. It was only if you published it something like a newspaper, magazine, TV show or radio show that it was taken seriously. The problem is that a lot of people post on online forums in the same sort of way that they used to talk in pubs when drunk in the past. But they can get sued because officially it's in writing, although in spirit it's more like chat. Twitter especially.
On the other hand if someon in a pub says "xxx is a political terrorist. He's got blood on his hands" Less than a dozen people will hear it. Put the same comment on a forum or social media site and may be 10 million people will read the comment.
its how policing riots works nowadays. Take lots of photos, and pick people up a couple of weeks later.
"If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of eighty years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release" - Not sure the supervised release will be needed in eighty years time!
That's very ageist! I dare say some centenarians can and do get a bit rowdy. Who knows what kind of mischief Captain Colonel Sir Tom might get up to after a few brandies?
Shed be 113 at the time of release!
There was the famous case of a judge who sentenced a man to 141 years in prison, and then informed him, ‘You will not, of course, serve all of this sentence. You are eligible for up to one-third remission for good conduct.’
An interesting point is I think it used to be the case that if, say, someone falsely accused another person of being a criminal while sitting in a pub after drinking a lot of alcohol, they wouldn't usually be sued for libel by the person concerned even if they found out about it. It was only if you published it something like a newspaper, magazine, TV show or radio show that it was taken seriously. The problem is that a lot of people post on online forums in the same sort of way that they used to talk in pubs when drunk in the past. But they can get sued because officially it's in writing, although in spirit it's more like chat. Twitter especially.
Yes, this is one of our biggest problems.
I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps to make the default private to a much smaller group and delete all messages after 7 days.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
I loathe him far more for his habitual lying on other issues.
I think this comment below nails it:
"He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade."
It’s a bit unfair to blame him for the last two. That’s happened in New Zealand as well.
I must admit I caught myself thinking about how the rest didn’t do Alex Salmond any harm....
Boris lies and I'm still waiting for him to finish a sentence. All politicians twist the truth, it goes with the territory. But in my list of stereotypes, journalists go below them.. I think it's their two main characteristics ... ignorance and arrogance. A perfect storm.
Can we ban questions that begin with 'Can you guarantee?' and "Why won't you say sorry for?" The first is impossible - I can't guarantee the world will exist tomorrow, and the second isn't a question..
Journalists are best treated as mardy six-year-olds. And most of the questions are self-serving. They are not 'great' or 'superb' or' 'brilliant'.
An interesting point is I think it used to be the case that if, say, someone falsely accused another person of being a criminal while sitting in a pub after drinking a lot of alcohol, they wouldn't usually be sued for libel by the person concerned even if they found out about it. It was only if you published it something like a newspaper, magazine, TV show or radio show that it was taken seriously. The problem is that a lot of people post on online forums in the same sort of way that they used to talk in pubs when drunk in the past. But they can get sued because officially it's in writing, although in spirit it's more like chat. Twitter especially.
Yes, this is one of our biggest problems.
I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps to make the default private to a much smaller group and delete all messages after 7 days.
... or maybe people should take responsibility if they publish dangerous lies?
Comments
Had Cameron been facing Farage or Gove as Leave frontman in 2016 Remain would likely have narrowly won
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/latino-support-trump-problem-democrats/606613/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/politics/latinos-biden-trump.html
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html
Also do not forget, a lot of media companies are angry about the tech companies "stealing" "their" advertising revenues. Trump might get some unexpected support in such a battle.
This is a subtly different issue, regarding an advertisment. The courts in the US have found broad agreement that newspapers and other advertising carriers have discretion to accept or reject advertising according to their own published rules. You cannot force a Christian News Channel to carry adverts from Satanists. If they have in their advertising Terms and Conditions "No advertisments may promote religions other than Christianity", then that's OK. The contents of these terms are governed by various laws, so you can't (for example) say "no advertisments from black people".
Edit. It is also worth pointing out that given you voted Remain I am not sure you are the best placed person to say why Leave won and what influenced Leave voters.
As for the traditional media, they are desperate (print revenues have collapsed as have TV ad revenues etc etc). Even if they do not like Trump, they will do what it takes to secure their position.
Without Boris it would probably have been 52% Remain 48% Leave or thereabouts, the anti immigration vote and the pro sovereignty vote would still have gone Leave but it was Boris who won the working class waverers for Leave to get them over 50%, how I voted does not change that
However, you raise an interesting point, and state by state rules will differ. My guess is that in most states The Voice would not be allowed to reject a white oriented advert.
The CDC has published a helpful list of the high-risk groups. First on the list is people aged 65 and over. Trump is 74. Will he be watching the rally on TV?
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1273754878788206594
The shifting moral zeitgeist, the shifting moral zeitgeist...
https://twitter.com/godblesstoto/status/1273733254030471168?s=21
https://twitter.com/godblesstoto/status/1273734311175389185?s=21
https://twitter.com/godblesstoto/status/1273735080112992256?s=21
Now, you could basically say that people who host user generated content aren't allowed to do any moderation at all. Which is fine, but causes big problems with regard to content such as pornography. Or defamatory statements.
Or you could go the other way, and make sites responsible for all the comments posted. Which means that a politicalbetting would need a full time moderator to check on the legality of content before it is allowed to be seen.
Section 230, which is far from perfect, attempts to find a middle ground. You can do moderation, as set out in your Ts&Cs, and you get a moderate degree of cover.
https://twitter.com/chrislongview/status/1273589618567311360
If China is identified as the State Actor behind the ongoing cyber attack on Australia, I think we will accelerate into a cold war situation over the next year. You can forget having supply chains based on Chinese production. You can also expect China to go up the agenda even more in the US elections. Sigh.
https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1273805321623011330
Scotland would have won but for that.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
Priti is good value next PM. The others are all flopping.
There are some committed Unionists out there, but I'm convinced that the main thing holding the UK together now is cash. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury, rather than a net beneficiary of it, then the 2014 vote would probably have gone the other way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-53103438
Does this mean anything? I wonder. Biden's ad is a lot better, of course.
Another thought, looking at the Press headlines on the BBC site; the Mail seems to be shifting. Quite an attack on the Govt. this morning.
https://twitter.com/Devilstower/status/1273322744084643840
Trump likes to insist that he does best when all is chaos around him and when people are counting him out. Now's his chance to prove it -- because digging out of the hole he has made for himself will be a massive task.
And Florida is not the ‘interior‘.
Shamelessly picking his Brexit side by which is better for his career was one thing, sabotaging and knifing May in the back another which I would view as the far more serious act of disloyalty.
But, I would also still vote for his government if they can show they are effective, and am happy to praise them when they get things right, like the u-turn on school meals or the furlough policy. The problem is there are far too many areas where they have been incompetent so far, the app, testing, communication, schools, care homes just some recent examples.
Because that actually happened. The actress turned up to the auditions assuming
Aliens was actually a movie about illegal immigrants in the United States and had dressed accordingly.
“I had seen Alien,” Jenette Goldstein told Starlog magazine, “but I had no idea this was a sequel. It had been so long ago, it didn’t even occur to me. I thought it was about actual aliens, you know, immigrants to a country … I actually came in wearing high heels and lots of makeup, and I had waist-length hair.”
what a bunch of joyless bennies.
Anyway, the upside of all this nonsense is that someone will buy up the 'banned' material and that will be the movie channel/streaming service any sane person will watch. See Talking Pictures for an example.
https://twitter.com/juliettekayyem/status/1273778811897884672
Or just worried about court cases.
... A number of Tulsa residents and business owners, alarmed by the prospect of a large-scale outbreak of coronavirus if the rally proceeds, have sued the venue manager attempting to block the event unless it is held in accordance with social distancing guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A Tulsa County judge on Tuesday denied the request for a temporary injunction, but the decision was appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court....
I think this comment below nails it:
"He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade."
However, since it falls to me:
Trump has now been Zuckerpunched.
Why quibble over an epithet which isn’t mine ?
In fact, Labour lost just 8 seats by fewer than 700 votes - Bury North, Kensington, Bury South, Bolton North East, High Peak, Gedling, Haywood and Middleton and Stoke on Trent Central. There were two other seats where the majority was below 1000, Blyth Valley (712) and Delyn (865).
Seats 27 (Peterborough) and above on their target list in terms of swing all have majorities of 2,500+.
Again, this is readily available online. Very careless not to have picked up on it.
That said, the broad thrust of the report’s conclusions as reported make sense. In 2017 they clung on to a lot of formerly very safe seats by very narrow margins, and 2019 gave the push to a tottering edifice.
Kinabalu will be narked at that comment about their private schools non-policy though
Letting it grow unchecked is a policy choice (by government at all levels) and a lifestyle choice by citizens. The federal government has some responsibility for the policy choice, but the president's leadership also affects the lifestyle choices of his tribe, and the policy choices of the states on his side. Trump has consistently tried to play the problem down, refuses to wear a mask, encouraged lifting the response irresponsibly and encouraged people to protest against the response. We now see the effects of that in the places where people listen to them. He's leading people to their deaths.
But yes, awesome.
He’s got barely more artistic talent than I have.
On the other hand if someon in a pub says "xxx is a political terrorist. He's got blood on his hands" Less than a dozen people will hear it. Put the same comment on a forum or social media site and may be 10 million people will read the comment.
I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps to make the default private to a much smaller group and delete all messages after 7 days.
I must admit I caught myself thinking about how the rest didn’t do Alex Salmond any harm....
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Boris lies and I'm still waiting for him to finish a sentence. All politicians twist the truth, it goes with the territory. But in my list of stereotypes, journalists go below them.. I think it's their two main characteristics ... ignorance and arrogance. A perfect storm.
Can we ban questions that begin with 'Can you guarantee?' and "Why won't you say sorry for?" The first is impossible - I can't guarantee the world will exist tomorrow, and the second isn't a question..
Journalists are best treated as mardy six-year-olds. And most of the questions are self-serving. They are not 'great' or 'superb' or' 'brilliant'.