My guess is the coup is pencilled in for 12th May 2021 (a week after a disappointing set of Senedd elections).
The Sunday Times says the government have put out feelers to delay the May elections across the UK, most likely delayed to September.
As was said last week. I still cannot see the necessity given logistical challenges can be handled, but I think a lot of places where elections ar edue would be quite happy to delay, and the government won't care that much so long as it happens this year, so will concede.
There's two major issues, one is the campaigning issue, which means parties cannot campaign as normal and secondly the age of polling station staff/volunteers.
The cleaning process also means it isn't possible to to sufficient cleaning and keep the normal 7am and 10pm window.
Labour want the elections to happen.
However, it is understood that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is resistant to moving the elections. A London Labour source said: “The prime minister has promised the most vulnerable people will be vaccinated against Covid-19 by mid-February, which means there is no legitimate reason to consider postponing the elections. Countries around the world have managed to hold elections during the pandemic safely — including the US presidential election.”
Odd, local elections are very much not needed right now. I think September makes sense. The politicians won't say it, but even if the vaccines fail (I don't think they will, but still), there will be no lockdown of any kind come the autumn. This will be over one way or another.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
This. We'll probably here it a lot from Republicans in the Senate (I don't condone what he did, but this is not the time to stir up tensions etc) because it is an easy way out, a way to pretend problems do not need to be confronted to be solved.
My belief is that President Biden will pardon The Donald. It would be a mistake imo.
Not. A. Chance.
Ford acknowledged that his decision to pardon Nixon cost him the 1976 election. Biden's not stupid.
Biden should offer pardons to the Trump family members in exchange for testimony against Papa.
I don't see any reason for Biden to pardon Trump or any other of the ClownScum show.
All he has to do is sit back as the states prosecute Trump et. al.
No federal pardon could effect state proceedings.
So Biden can say - "I'm not persecuting Trump. The states are prosecuting him. I can't interfere - States Rights!"
The question of Federally prosecuting Trump (who will probably be in a state prison at that point) will come up late in K. Harris second term.
He was such a wise man it would take a fool not to learn from him. Also very good in bed, I understand.
If the various identities do indeed emanate from one poster - I`m not alleging that they do - then I have no problem with this. It`s quite fun.
I miss Byronic`s and Lady G`s posts. Especially the latter, from whom a gleaned two or three excellent travel tips. One for the coast north east of Athens and another in the Canaries.
Yes, there used to be a prevailing view on PB that pseudonyms, noms de plume, or - as they were inelegantly known here “multiple screen names” were some sort of grave crime. It was then, as it is now, an utterly pathetic attack.
I think it was Nick Palmer Ex MP who essentially nailed it when he asked: “Who cares if one anonymous poster returns as another anonymous poster?”
Which was a very good question I think.
In any case, Leon has improved in recent days. He is rather less boring and has thankfully rolled back somewhat on the doom pornography which was in danger of defining him.
Is Sean banned from the site? I always assumed Byronic was a pseudonym.
Sean asked for his posts to be deleted and has since appeared with pseudonym accounts that are usually easy to spot due to the poster's insane business...
Leave them alone on this. It might be absurd (as are a number of their contributions), but everyone knows what it is, and they add considerable value (on balance) to the site. We all wind each other up on occasion, but persisting in doing so too much smacks of intolerance.
Read most of this (vg) Header thinking it was Cyclefree and then it turns out to be Alastair Meeks. I'm losing it. What I'm not losing, though, is my facility to coin the right term for things. The one I've long used for Donald Trump - when I'm in a detached mood - is wannabe fascist and I'm sticking with this. This is what he has been - along with all the other things he undoubtedly is - ever since that ride down the golden escalator in 2015.
Thankfully he has not managed to drop the "w" qualifier and although one should not be complacent about it it's clear he never will. He's finished in politics now. This is the upside of the simultaneously frightening and shambolic events of last week. It was a complete mess of an affair. A very tittish coup. The real deal strongmen such as Putin and Xi would have been pissing themselves watching it on TV. "Oh Don, Don, Don. You crazy boy. Why didn't you get in touch?"
Eloquently put. And absolutely correct. Trump will leave office on Wednesday week as a spent, pathetic loser. A laughing stock.
Cheers thanks. Yes, you and I are the most confident on here about this, I think, that he's over as something serious in politics. I wish I was as confident he would see the inside of a jail cell but I have a feeling he won't.
Yeah, I agree that the balance of odds is against his jailing. But I’m confident he’ll wither rapidly as a force, and just become an increasingly pathetic joke: Sarah Palin is probably the nearest (but by no means precise) analogue.
Anyone remember her?
I don't think people will forget Trump. Maybe just send him to St Helena.
Too accessible now it has an airstrip.
Pitcairn.
If he comes to Prestwick, Nicola can exile him to Rockall.
A rock covered in seagull shit is just right for his new home.
We've got a few. There are still remains of the buildings used to imprison Covenanters on Bass Rock, Trump's Free Church Lewis ancestors may even approve of him joining the dissenting martyrs!
Hmm, as per James Robertson novel. But what has Lothian done to deserve Mr T? BTW gannet shite more than larid faeces. Been there, many years ago (before there was a fire and the gannets moved in to cover where the grassy top had been and those i/c discouraged visits). Must be very frustrating for a Leodheasach like you, seeing it and not being allowed to eat them.
Never been offered guga, but it's not exactly a regret. Not helped by my dad (who never saw a story that he didn't think needed embellishment) telling me about the olden days when the guga were packed and salted in outdoor pits, and the men of the house would pop out to help the process with an occasional pee.
I do find it difficult to believe Mr T would come to Scotland - imagine himself in a Doric or Ayrshire links course with the winter wind off the sea. Not to mention the potential for repeated conflict with the SG who wouldn't be able to afford to let Mr T show his usual care for covid precautions.
The numerous tanning parlours of the West of Scotland would be vying for the business though.
Things are so upside down that if Domnhail mór did come to Scotland, there's more likely to be a rapprochement between him and Salmond than between Salmond and Sturgeon. I can just imagine it..
'My good friend Alex who has been so badly treated by the fake media witch-hunt and failing Sturgeon government'
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
This. We'll probably here it a lot from Republicans in the Senate (I don't condone what he did, but this is not the time to stir up tensions etc) because it is an easy way out, a way to pretend problems do not need to be confronted to be solved.
My belief is that President Biden will pardon The Donald. It would be a mistake imo.
Not. A. Chance.
Ford acknowledged that his decision to pardon Nixon cost him the 1976 election. Biden's not stupid.
Biden should offer pardons to the Trump family members in exchange for testimony against Papa.
I don't see any reason for Biden to pardon Trump or any other of the ClownScum show.
All he has to do is sit back as the states prosecute Trump et. al.
No federal pardon could effect state proceedings.
So Biden can say - "I'm not persecuting Trump. The states are prosecuting him. I can't interfere - States Rights!"
The question of Federally prosecuting Trump (who will probably be in a state prison at that point) will come up late in K. Harris second term.
No federal pardon could affect state proceedings, but it may well effect them.
I used to buy flowers for my desk at work. £10 for half a dozen red, white and blue roses, from a stall at the station. I stopped when, out of the blue after 18 months, it struck me I was subsidising the company to the tune of £500 a year. There seem to be a lot of adverts for florists now so perhaps that is another sector feeling the lockdown pinch, with limited weddings, hospital visits and dinner parties.
If only you had driven to work, you could have picked them up at a fraction of the price at the slip road.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
I think this is why this needs to be pursued with every tool in the legal arsenal by Congress and the lawmakers. It does appear to be becoming apparent this was far more than just a situation that got out of hand and was carefully (although thankfully poorly) planned in advance. As such Trump does need to be impeached and there then needs to be a formal investigation started at a Federal level to uncover the exact details of the plot.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
Agreed. The coup was plotted at the top, not by the clowns in fancy dress, and attempts to reorient blame on to the invaders who took selfies not hostages simply distract from the real conspirators around and inside the Oval Office.
I still can’t decide. Coup, or just coup-like theatre that got out of hand. There is evidence both ways.
In either case, this needs more investigation than Watergate or Vietnam.
The right-wing bury-bad-news handbook 1. It was BLM, Antifa, Muslims, and leftists [0-2 hours] 2. It's too early to tell what really happened [2-24 hours] 3. It wasn't BLM, Antifa, Muslims, or leftists but they caused others to do it [1-3 days] 4. We should take the time to find out what really happened [3-21 days] (YOU ARE HERE) 5. What, you're still on about that? That was ages ago! [3 weeks-eternity]
Whilst Leon is quite rightly suggesting a proper investigation and full scale judicial proceedings you are sadly advocating the Beziers 'kill 'em all and let God decide' policy.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
I've seen some on the right calling for the nationalisation of Facebook and Twitter.
The tech companies have made sure that they will be one of the hot topics politically moving forwards. What might be a problem short-term is whether other political leaders might be looking at what they have done and thinking they should take some pre-emptive action. If I'm a Modi or a Bolsinaro (both of whom are accused of being Trump-like), I might look to ban the apps on national security grounds. Modi has already done this with Chinese apps in India.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
This. We'll probably here it a lot from Republicans in the Senate (I don't condone what he did, but this is not the time to stir up tensions etc) because it is an easy way out, a way to pretend problems do not need to be confronted to be solved.
My belief is that President Biden will pardon The Donald. It would be a mistake imo.
Not. A. Chance.
Ford acknowledged that his decision to pardon Nixon cost him the 1976 election. Biden's not stupid.
Biden should offer pardons to the Trump family members in exchange for testimony against Papa.
I don't see any reason for Biden to pardon Trump or any other of the ClownScum show.
All he has to do is sit back as the states prosecute Trump et. al.
No federal pardon could effect state proceedings.
So Biden can say - "I'm not persecuting Trump. The states are prosecuting him. I can't interfere - States Rights!"
The question of Federally prosecuting Trump (who will probably be in a state prison at that point) will come up late in K. Harris second term.
It was more for the comedy/box office angle.
Seeing Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka turn on papa to save their arses will be fun to watch.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
I think this is why this needs to be pursued with every tool in the legal arsenal by Congress and the lawmakers. It does appear to be becoming apparent this was far more than just a situation that got out of hand and was carefully (although thankfully poorly) planned in advance. As such Trump does need to be impeached and there then needs to be a formal investigation started at a Federal level to uncover the exact details of the plot.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
Agreed. The coup was plotted at the top, not by the clowns in fancy dress, and attempts to reorient blame on to the invaders who took selfies not hostages simply distract from the real conspirators around and inside the Oval Office.
I still can’t decide. Coup, or just coup-like theatre that got out of hand. There is evidence both ways.
In either case, this needs more investigation than Watergate or Vietnam.
The right-wing bury-bad-news handbook 1. It was BLM, Antifa, Muslims, and leftists [0-2 hours] 2. It's too early to tell what really happened [2-24 hours] 3. It wasn't BLM, Antifa, Muslims, or leftists but they caused others to do it [1-3 days] 4. We should take the time to find out what really happened [3-21 days] (YOU ARE HERE) 5. What, you're still on about that? That was ages ago! [3 weeks-eternity]
Whilst Leon is quite rightly suggesting a proper investigation and full scale judicial proceedings you are sadly advocating the Beziers 'kill 'em all and let God decide' policy.
You fucking what? When did I say "kill em all"?
You tosser.
Stop being so fucking ignorant and pretending to take stuff so fucking literally just to try and deflect an argument. Everyone else knew what I meant. Are you really that fucking dumb.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
Or as was pointed out by others on here in December - if Labour had voted no the result was attacks that they never wanted us to Leave.
It really was a no win choice for Labour - but I did say continually that they should have just taken the day off and left the Tories to it.
Sadly because of the Covid announcements that wasn't an option.
I suggest that in a few years time 'You never wanted us to Leave' is going to be far less damaging than 'You voted for it".
It would be even better if in a few years no one is ever talking about Brexit again.
Yours, A former Remainer.
Does 'A former Remainer' = 'now a Rejoiner'?
No.
We all need to move on from Brexit. I'm done with it. It's over.
Listening to Starmer on Marr he rejects reintroducing free movement of Labour which of course would see the UK rejoining the single market and customs union, but he said he would want to improve on this 'thin' deal.
Marr pointed out that he had told the Daily Mirror he would bring back free movement of Labour and that his many supporters will be angered by his answer. He reiterated he would not bring free movement of Labour and it must follow that those who support closer ties or rejoining can only have one home and it is not Labour
Step forward the Lib Dems or SNP in Scotland
You need to move on , there is a deal. We know you are anti Labour in every regard , I think we all get it by now. Step forward with what ?
Actually you are quite wrong
I am reporting an exchange between Marr and Starmer and his refusal to reintroduce freedom of movement and to have closer ties with Europe
This is not anti Labour, this is where Starmer is and we all know there is a large cohort of Labour supporters who want closer ties or to rejoin the EU and Labour are not going to go there
Hence Lib Dems and SNP and Plaid are the home of those who desire EU membership
And Starmer is not at all a no go as Corbyn was and as of now I am open to persuasion by either of the main parties for my vote in 2024 subject to me keeping taking my pills and hopefully being vaccinated at sometime in the next few weeks
Starmer is sensibly making Labour a party Redwall voters can consider voting for again, leaving the diehard Remainers as you say to the LDs, Greens, SNP and Plaid
You seem to be suggesting that Scotland is now diehard remain. Fair play for accepting that.
It isn't, Yougov showed even most Scots wanted the Deal to pass.
45% of Scots only voted SNP in 2019, 55% did not
+9.5 lib dem, +1.0 green
Though the LDs are a Unionist party despite opposing the Brexit Deal
Uh, we were talking about Europe, which is an issue that cuts across the separate independence question.
Strange how you are never quite able to have a proper conversation... you lose track of what the conversation was about, exactly like... a chatbot.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
It seems like a bit of red meat being thrown out by Pelosi and Schumer to the base. There is a question mark whether it would get a majority in the House. The last figure I saw said over 150 House Democrats had signed but that still leaves several score who haven't and some have come out and at least one has said he will oppose it. There may be a handful of Republicans who sign but limited.
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I suspect Big_G would be the one justifiably taking offence at that suggestion.
The similarity is not an obvious one, I have to admit. Touch of the "sotto voce" mafiosa about G, at times, but I never feel truly menaced.
Can someone remind me when the daily updates on vaccination numbers are due to start?
Tomorrow.
It'll be interesting to see if we have vaccinated 2 million last week per Hancock or if it is case we've offered vaccinations to 2 million people.
I think he misspoke / was misreported. It has to be 2 million total, as what he definitely did say was we are now doing 200k people per day (I presume that was probably what they did Friday or Saturday).
I know of a few sites that had to cancel and rebook patients when they were notified that supplies were not going to be timely. The Oxford vaccine has finally arrived though so a total of 2 million tommorow is plausible. Supply seems to be the main constraint.
I've seen some on the right calling for the nationalisation of Facebook and Twitter.
The tech companies have made sure that they will be one of the hot topics politically moving forwards. What might be a problem short-term is whether other political leaders might be looking at what they have done and thinking they should take some pre-emptive action. If I'm a Modi or a Bolsinaro (both of whom are accused of being Trump-like), I might look to ban the apps on national security grounds. Modi has already done this with Chinese apps in India.
The actual issue can be seen in the first post below that thread
But I do suspect a lot of countries will be trying to work out how to make local apps that they can have control of while others work out how to keep on using apps their Government has zero control over.
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
The only coup I back is through the ballot box in May
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
"Blairite efficiency"? What nation have you in mind for Ken's illegal war?
Madge all the way down the rabbit hole and ending up somewhere north of Koolaidsville. Slightly puzzled why he thinks events should be viewed through a conflict resolution lens if he believes those rampaging loons were Antifa?
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
I think this is why this needs to be pursued with every tool in the legal arsenal by Congress and the lawmakers. It does appear to be becoming apparent this was far more than just a situation that got out of hand and was carefully (although thankfully poorly) planned in advance. As such Trump does need to be impeached and there then needs to be a formal investigation started at a Federal level to uncover the exact details of the plot.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
Agreed. The coup was plotted at the top, not by the clowns in fancy dress, and attempts to reorient blame on to the invaders who took selfies not hostages simply distract from the real conspirators around and inside the Oval Office.
I still can’t decide. Coup, or just coup-like theatre that got out of hand. There is evidence both ways.
In either case, this needs more investigation than Watergate or Vietnam.
The right-wing bury-bad-news handbook 1. It was BLM, Antifa, Muslims, and leftists [0-2 hours] 2. It's too early to tell what really happened [2-24 hours] 3. It wasn't BLM, Antifa, Muslims, or leftists but they caused others to do it [1-3 days] 4. We should take the time to find out what really happened [3-21 days] (YOU ARE HERE) 5. What, you're still on about that? That was ages ago! [3 weeks-eternity]
Whilst Leon is quite rightly suggesting a proper investigation and full scale judicial proceedings you are sadly advocating the Beziers 'kill 'em all and let God decide' policy.
You fucking what? When did I say "kill em all"?
You tosser.
Stop being so fucking ignorant and pretending to take stuff so fucking literally just to try and deflect an argument. Everyone else knew what I meant. Are you really that fucking dumb.
I've just googled it and you seem to be referring to a massacre in Béziers in 1209. Hoooboy, ok, my thirteenth century military history isn't much to write home about, so if that qualifies me for dumbhood then duly noted and we can move on. I'm THAT fucking dumb.
Now, for the other dumb people here (or maybe I'm the ONLY dumb one?) what in the FUCK are you on about?
I used to buy flowers for my desk at work. £10 for half a dozen red, white and blue roses, from a stall at the station. I stopped when, out of the blue after 18 months, it struck me I was subsidising the company to the tune of £500 a year. There seem to be a lot of adverts for florists now so perhaps that is another sector feeling the lockdown pinch, with limited weddings, hospital visits and dinner parties.
If only you had driven to work, you could have picked them up at a fraction of the price at the slip road.
I don't think Trump is a fascist. I don't think he has any attachment to any political philosophy. I don't think he has any sense of patriotism, let alone nationalism. He is entirely and totally in it for himself. There is nothing else. Because of that he will associate with anyone and anything that he believes will further his own interests. He took the election defeat as a personal humiliation (as it was) and because of that has sought to do whatever possible to overturn it, up to and including insurrection. Last Wednesday was a coup, but it was not one designed to promote an ideology or secure the interests of a class. It was all about Trump not being able to handle being a loser. That's why he authorised it. Though it was probably not why others took part.
Does one need an ideology to be classed as a fascist? I don’t think so.
Fascism is an ideology, isn't it?
Wikipedia says it’s a far right ideology - but I tend to think it’s more about dictatorships and oppression.
I find it hard to accept a definition for fascism that covers Pol Pot or Mao.
How would you classify them?
Totalitarians.
The Big 5 criteria for fascism -
Viewing a country as your personal property and yourself as its embodiment. Contempt for democracy and judicial independence. Opponents = Enemies. Fetishization of the Nation and its superiority over others - who are to be "beaten". Elevation of the true blood "real" people over minorities and incomers. Leather.
I now have a horrible mental image of Trump in leathers. Thanks a bunch.
Sorry for that. But he is a bit "sniff the glove", don't you think?
I know this is at a very early stage but does anyone see Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota as a plausible GOP Presidential candidate in 2024? She did very well at the RNC meeting in late summer and South Dakota has taken a somewhat different approach to Covid than other states.
I can see Noem reaching the Trump supporters and she is articulate in a way the immediate Trump family members are not.
On a complete tangent, I thought we all knew @Leon and @LadyG weren't @SeanT I thought @Leon was our old mate Martin Day of this parish from the old days but I could be wrong - I'm usually wrong.
Noem is a possible runner in 2024 but then so is almost everyone else. I looked at her when there was talk of Trump ditching Pence and running with a new VP candidate last year. It is a bit early to get involved in 2024.
Read most of this (vg) Header thinking it was Cyclefree and then it turns out to be Alastair Meeks. I'm losing it. What I'm not losing, though, is my facility to coin the right term for things. The one I've long used for Donald Trump - when I'm in a detached mood - is wannabe fascist and I'm sticking with this. This is what he has been - along with all the other things he undoubtedly is - ever since that ride down the golden escalator in 2015.
Thankfully he has not managed to drop the "w" qualifier and although one should not be complacent about it it's clear he never will. He's finished in politics now. This is the upside of the simultaneously frightening and shambolic events of last week. It was a complete mess of an affair. A very tittish coup. The real deal strongmen such as Putin and Xi would have been pissing themselves watching it on TV. "Oh Don, Don, Don. You crazy boy. Why didn't you get in touch?"
Eloquently put. And absolutely correct. Trump will leave office on Wednesday week as a spent, pathetic loser. A laughing stock.
Cheers thanks. Yes, you and I are the most confident on here about this, I think, that he's over as something serious in politics. I wish I was as confident he would see the inside of a jail cell but I have a feeling he won't.
Yeah, I agree that the balance of odds is against his jailing. But I’m confident he’ll wither rapidly as a force, and just become an increasingly pathetic joke: Sarah Palin is probably the nearest (but by no means precise) analogue.
Anyone remember her?
I don't think people will forget Trump. Maybe just send him to St Helena.
Too accessible now it has an airstrip.
Pitcairn.
If he comes to Prestwick, Nicola can exile him to Rockall.
A rock covered in seagull shit is just right for his new home.
We've got a few. There are still remains of the buildings used to imprison Covenanters on Bass Rock, Trump's Free Church Lewis ancestors may even approve of him joining the dissenting martyrs!
Hmm, as per James Robertson novel. But what has Lothian done to deserve Mr T? BTW gannet shite more than larid faeces. Been there, many years ago (before there was a fire and the gannets moved in to cover where the grassy top had been and those i/c discouraged visits). Must be very frustrating for a Leodheasach like you, seeing it and not being allowed to eat them.
Never been offered guga, but it's not exactly a regret. Not helped by my dad (who never saw a story that he didn't think needed embellishment) telling me about the olden days when the guga were packed and salted in outdoor pits, and the men of the house would pop out to help the process with an occasional pee.
I do find it difficult to believe Mr T would come to Scotland - imagine himself in a Doric or Ayrshire links course with the winter wind off the sea. Not to mention the potential for repeated conflict with the SG who wouldn't be able to afford to let Mr T show his usual care for covid precautions.
The numerous tanning parlours of the West of Scotland would be vying for the business though.
Things are so upside down that if Domnhail mór did come to Scotland, there's more likely to be a rapprochement between him and Salmond than between Salmond and Sturgeon. I can just imagine it..
'My good friend Alex who has been so badly treated by the fake media witch-hunt and failing Sturgeon government'
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
"Blairite efficiency"? What nation have you in mind for Ken's illegal war?
Probably an invasion of Cornwall to expand the Celtic territories.
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
You´d hope for a bit more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Sadly for Farage- but hilariously for the rest of us- his meal ticket from the US far-right rubber chicken lecture circuit has just gone up in smoke. As for UK politics? A discount Enoch Powell without the after-life in Northern Ireland. Within a year or two, Nigel Who?
And yet he achieved one of the greatest changes in the political landscape of the UK in the last 70 years. The idea he will be forgotten - for better or worse - is laughable.
When I said that he was one of the most successful politicians of the past 50 years the only candidates people put up to show this wasn't so were, as I recall, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama.
Boris Johnson.
Even Steve Baker had a bigger impact in the last couple of years.
Nah Topping is absolutely right on this. Brexit simply wouldn't have happened without Farage banging away about it for years. He forced the Tories into a position where they had to finally address the issue once and for all. Boris may have got it over the line but he wouldn't have even been in the game were it not for Farage.
The LibDems & Tony Blair are to blame for Brexit.
A key mistake was surely the European Parliamentary Elections Act in 1999. Tony Blair's legislation changed the European elections from FPTP to PR (no doubt, the LibDems were cheering).
It was this that gave Nigel Farage has chance -- he was finally elected as an MEP in 1999. And he was able to grow UKIP as a political force with the oxygen of PR.
There is an arguable case that it was the LibDems endlessly blathering on about PR that caused Brexit
(FWIW, I favour PR, but it doesn't usually have the effect that the LibDems want -- see also the Senedd.)
The form of PR used in Wales (and Scotland) is a bit of a mongrel that perpetuates some of the negative aspects of FPTP.
NZ PR works better.
Also the Scottish version is gerrymandered to be - ironically - a sort of inverse of FPTP, ie nobody is supposed to win a majority at all, nevver mind how many vote for them. Doesn't always wqork, but that was definitely Labour's intention in the first place.
It was set up by Labour and the Lib Dems with the intention of them being in permanent coalition. The 2007 election scuppered this when the SNP minority government was often supported by the Conservatives. Since then, Scotland has realised that Labour are not good at governing Scotland.
It was a frustrating gerrymander. Ironically it now chiefly works against - in Scotland - Labour and the Lib Dems.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
The only coup I back is through the ballot box in May
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
Any proof Boris facilitated this in any way? Or are you just ranting.
It seems pretty clear that Trump has strongly fascist tendencies - one of the good reasons why he lost the popular vote numerically both in 2016 and 2020. What the term 'fascist' conceals is that certain attitudes common in the world embrace pretty much the same attributes and are just as bad. Terms like 'left' and 'right' don't help much here either; nor does the idea of ideology, for that implies something rational, thoughtful and long term.
Better maybe to look for the common attributes of bad politics wherever it comes from, such as
The use of political violence Suppression of dissent Distancing from the civil democratic process Use of scapegoating Indifference to succession planning Friends and allies who fit a particular pattern Use of 'the lie direct'
The list can be extended of course. The attention, rightly, on the USA should not disguise how everyday and frequent these attributes are in the world and how useless are terms like 'left' and 'right' when dealing with authoritarians, totalitarians, narcissists and psychopaths.
But most of the real xxxs are right wing.
Language, vicar, language....
Sorry. Post zapped by mods (only 2nd time ever for me!) and rightly so on a Sunday.
Will cleanse and resubmit.
There's a fine line between a Kunstsprache and a ...
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
Any evidence that the Prime Minister interfered personally as you are implying?
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
Stanley Johnson is 80 years old. Sometimes less is more, malc, I don't believe for an instant that you actually believe Boris Johnson is personally intervening in individuals receiving vaccines, and because I cannot believe it it just makes the criticism of the vaccine roll out look silly. And you were suggesting he is personally intervening by saying Boris 'as has allowed' it. So unless proof emerges of Boris phoning or emailing someone to put pressure on them to allow this, it just looks silly.
My guess is the coup is pencilled in for 12th May 2021 (a week after a disappointing set of Senedd elections).
The Sunday Times says the government have put out feelers to delay the May elections across the UK, most likely delayed to September.
As was said last week. I still cannot see the necessity given logistical challenges can be handled, but I think a lot of places where elections ar edue would be quite happy to delay, and the government won't care that much so long as it happens this year, so will concede.
There's two major issues, one is the campaigning issue, which means parties cannot campaign as normal and secondly the age of polling station staff/volunteers.
The cleaning process also means it isn't possible to to sufficient cleaning and keep the normal 7am and 10pm window.
Labour want the elections to happen.
However, it is understood that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is resistant to moving the elections. A London Labour source said: “The prime minister has promised the most vulnerable people will be vaccinated against Covid-19 by mid-February, which means there is no legitimate reason to consider postponing the elections. Countries around the world have managed to hold elections during the pandemic safely — including the US presidential election.”
Odd, local elections are very much not needed right now. I think September makes sense. The politicians won't say it, but even if the vaccines fail (I don't think they will, but still), there will be no lockdown of any kind come the autumn. This will be over one way or another.
I don't think that vaccines will fail, but they are not going to be the full answer either. Uptake will probably be around 70% in the at risk groups, lower in the general population, and there will be outbreaks despite it.
May elections can be postal, or perhaps even have American style early voting so as to minimise crowding.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
It seems like a bit of red meat being thrown out by Pelosi and Schumer to the base. There is a question mark whether it would get a majority in the House. The last figure I saw said over 150 House Democrats had signed but that still leaves several score who haven't and some have come out and at least one has said he will oppose it. There may be a handful of Republicans who sign but limited.
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
When you've just had your centre of government attacked, people killed, groups of organised paramilitaries with hostage clips, guns and pipe bombs threatening to hang the vice-president, and the president himself cheerfully having been on site to cheer on the whole thing just an hour before, it's a bit of a stretch to call going ahead with articles on impeachment "throwing red meat to the base".
Is there a full and definitive list of the SeanT pseudonyms?
Byronic LadyG Eadric Leon
But from memory there was one which popped up for just a few posts between Byronic and Lady G.
Can we not do this? FFS, just let people have their pseudonyms.
I often spot "old" posters coming back with different handles but what I've never spotted is someone using multiple IDs at once.
So my assumption is that (assuming same ISP address) you can close your account and come back with a new name but you CAN'T run multiple IDs concurrently. Is this right? Or can you, like, have multiple IDs if you just link to different email addresses?
Asking only from curiosity, not as prep for messing around myself. I wouldn't do that. Life's too short.
Just so long as you don't answer your own question.
- I'm a bit cold, Ben. Can you put the heating on next time you go downstairs.
Careful, some people might notice how 'we' never argue!
And we must cut down on this bantering too. It's a ridiculous tell. Bye Ben. Take care.
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
You´d hope for a bit more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Sadly for Farage- but hilariously for the rest of us- his meal ticket from the US far-right rubber chicken lecture circuit has just gone up in smoke. As for UK politics? A discount Enoch Powell without the after-life in Northern Ireland. Within a year or two, Nigel Who?
And yet he achieved one of the greatest changes in the political landscape of the UK in the last 70 years. The idea he will be forgotten - for better or worse - is laughable.
When I said that he was one of the most successful politicians of the past 50 years the only candidates people put up to show this wasn't so were, as I recall, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama.
Boris Johnson.
Even Steve Baker had a bigger impact in the last couple of years.
Nah Topping is absolutely right on this. Brexit simply wouldn't have happened without Farage banging away about it for years. He forced the Tories into a position where they had to finally address the issue once and for all. Boris may have got it over the line but he wouldn't have even been in the game were it not for Farage.
If Farage was banging away in isolation that would be fair enough.
But that completely ignores the Tory backbenchers who themselves were also banging away about it for years too.
Cameron didn't agree the referendum due to UKIP surging in the polls or winning the EP elections, he did so after around a hundred of his own MPs voted for one.
There was a crucial element within the Tory Party that were unhappy, just like there was in Labour in the seventies. Farage fed off that but he didn't do anything in a vacuum.
That element within the Tory party achieved nothing except to create a lot of light but no heat. They failed in the Major era and continued to fail throughout the Blair era. It was only when Farage and UKIP became a serious threat that they moved from being a minor fringe to being mainstream in the backbench party. Without the pressure Farage put on Tory MPs and his successes in the European elections nothing would have changed in the Tory party. There wold have been no referendum and no Brexit.
Farage's only mistake (or rather perhaps his biggest mistake amongst many) was not to realise when he had won and to think he had an importance beyond securing the referendum. To be horribly brutal about it he outgrew his usefulness and became a liability to the Leave side. That is not to say I am not hugely grateful for what he achieved but he needed to know when to stop and accept he had won.
Totally disagreed. You're making a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument.
They failed during the Major era in part, but essentially succeeded in destroying Major's tenure and ensuring the Conservative Party in future had to take them seriously - every single Tory leader post-Major took the Europe issue much more sceptically.
During the Blair years what could be achieved? The Tories were a minority, let alone an element of the Tories.
As soon as Cameron came to power the Tory backbenchers mattered. Cameron could distance himself from them a bit because he had the Lib Dems as allies bolstering his numbers - but he couldn't ignore them. 81 MPs from his own party demanding a referendum in 2011 (before UKIP took off) made it inevitable that Cameron would have to deal with the EU issue. When nearly a hundred of your own MPs are demanding it, then action becomes inevitable.
I've seen some on the right calling for the nationalisation of Facebook and Twitter.
The tech companies have made sure that they will be one of the hot topics politically moving forwards. What might be a problem short-term is whether other political leaders might be looking at what they have done and thinking they should take some pre-emptive action. If I'm a Modi or a Bolsinaro (both of whom are accused of being Trump-like), I might look to ban the apps on national security grounds. Modi has already done this with Chinese apps in India.
The actual issue can be seen in the first post below that thread
But I do suspect a lot of countries will be trying to work out how to make local apps that they can have control of while others work out how to keep on using apps their Government has zero control over.
Poland has already passed a law saying apps which ban political opinions can be fined. I'm sure others will follow
Read most of this (vg) Header thinking it was Cyclefree and then it turns out to be Alastair Meeks. I'm losing it. What I'm not losing, though, is my facility to coin the right term for things. The one I've long used for Donald Trump - when I'm in a detached mood - is wannabe fascist and I'm sticking with this. This is what he has been - along with all the other things he undoubtedly is - ever since that ride down the golden escalator in 2015.
Thankfully he has not managed to drop the "w" qualifier and although one should not be complacent about it it's clear he never will. He's finished in politics now. This is the upside of the simultaneously frightening and shambolic events of last week. It was a complete mess of an affair. A very tittish coup. The real deal strongmen such as Putin and Xi would have been pissing themselves watching it on TV. "Oh Don, Don, Don. You crazy boy. Why didn't you get in touch?"
Eloquently put. And absolutely correct. Trump will leave office on Wednesday week as a spent, pathetic loser. A laughing stock.
Cheers thanks. Yes, you and I are the most confident on here about this, I think, that he's over as something serious in politics. I wish I was as confident he would see the inside of a jail cell but I have a feeling he won't.
Yeah, I agree that the balance of odds is against his jailing. But I’m confident he’ll wither rapidly as a force, and just become an increasingly pathetic joke: Sarah Palin is probably the nearest (but by no means precise) analogue.
Anyone remember her?
I don't think people will forget Trump. Maybe just send him to St Helena.
Too accessible now it has an airstrip.
Pitcairn.
If he comes to Prestwick, Nicola can exile him to Rockall.
A rock covered in seagull shit is just right for his new home.
We've got a few. There are still remains of the buildings used to imprison Covenanters on Bass Rock, Trump's Free Church Lewis ancestors may even approve of him joining the dissenting martyrs!
Hmm, as per James Robertson novel. But what has Lothian done to deserve Mr T? BTW gannet shite more than larid faeces. Been there, many years ago (before there was a fire and the gannets moved in to cover where the grassy top had been and those i/c discouraged visits). Must be very frustrating for a Leodheasach like you, seeing it and not being allowed to eat them.
Never been offered guga, but it's not exactly a regret. Not helped by my dad (who never saw a story that he didn't think needed embellishment) telling me about the olden days when the guga were packed and salted in outdoor pits, and the men of the house would pop out to help the process with an occasional pee.
I do find it difficult to believe Mr T would come to Scotland - imagine himself in a Doric or Ayrshire links course with the winter wind off the sea. Not to mention the potential for repeated conflict with the SG who wouldn't be able to afford to let Mr T show his usual care for covid precautions.
The numerous tanning parlours of the West of Scotland would be vying for the business though.
Things are so upside down that if Domnhail mór did come to Scotland, there's more likely to be a rapprochement between him and Salmond than between Salmond and Sturgeon. I can just imagine it..
'My good friend Alex who has been so badly treated by the fake media witch-hunt and failing Sturgeon government'
Well, I don't actually think it's likely, just less unlikely than Eck and Nicola patching it up. We're in a world where Scottish Tories and George Galloway are enthusiastically linking to Wings articles after all.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I suspect Big_G would be the one justifiably taking offence at that suggestion.
The similarity is not an obvious one, I have to admit. Touch of the "sotto voce" mafiosa about G, at times, but I never feel truly menaced.
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
When I brought this up yesterday I was shot down in flames because of the vaccine queue jumping kidney transplant Labour MP as reported in the Birmingham Mail, so be warned.
I would love to hear that Jenrick has already had both doses. I wonder what are the chances?
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
This is interesting, as it doesn't tally really with what the political media class have mainly made a show of being prepared for. Despite it being just as important, most of the advance news, arguments and public rhetoric have actually been on traffic in, not out.
Brexit isn't working and it's unlikely to do so without some kind of engagement with the EU, which, Starmer please note, will have to be at political as well as at the business level. Just pretending the EU doesn't exist, move on, nothing to see here, won't make Brexit work
This man heads up the federation of those that move perishable goods. The whole thread is worth a read. While he is talking about businesses left in the lurch by their own government having to sort things out themselves, it surely will also apply sooner or later to government too. No-one will enjoy this.
It seems pretty clear that Trump has strongly fascist tendencies - one of the good reasons why he lost the popular vote numerically both in 2016 and 2020. What the term 'fascist' conceals is that certain attitudes common in the world embrace pretty much the same attributes and are just as bad. Terms like 'left' and 'right' don't help much here either; nor does the idea of ideology, for that implies something rational, thoughtful and long term.
Better maybe to look for the common attributes of bad politics wherever it comes from, such as
The use of political violence Suppression of dissent Distancing from the civil democratic process Use of scapegoating Indifference to succession planning Friends and allies who fit a particular pattern Use of 'the lie direct'
The list can be extended of course. The attention, rightly, on the USA should not disguise how everyday and frequent these attributes are in the world and how useless are terms like 'left' and 'right' when dealing with authoritarians, totalitarians, narcissists and psychopaths.
But most of the real xxxs are right wing.
Language, vicar, language....
Sorry. Post zapped by mods (only 2nd time ever for me!) and rightly so on a Sunday.
Will cleanse and resubmit.
There's a fine line between a Kunstsprache and a ...
I welcome Kinabalu`s journey towards potty-mouthdom. Brings him down to our level.
I don't think Trump is a fascist. I don't think he has any attachment to any political philosophy. I don't think he has any sense of patriotism, let alone nationalism. He is entirely and totally in it for himself. There is nothing else. Because of that he will associate with anyone and anything that he believes will further his own interests. He took the election defeat as a personal humiliation (as it was) and because of that has sought to do whatever possible to overturn it, up to and including insurrection. Last Wednesday was a coup, but it was not one designed to promote an ideology or secure the interests of a class. It was all about Trump not being able to handle being a loser. That's why he authorised it. Though it was probably not why others took part.
Does one need an ideology to be classed as a fascist? I don’t think so.
Fascism is an ideology, isn't it?
Wikipedia says it’s a far right ideology - but I tend to think it’s more about dictatorships and oppression.
I find it hard to accept a definition for fascism that covers Pol Pot or Mao.
How would you classify them?
Totalitarians.
The Big 5 criteria for fascism -
Viewing a country as your personal property and yourself as its embodiment. Contempt for democracy and judicial independence. Opponents = Enemies. Fetishization of the Nation and its superiority over others - who are to be "beaten". Elevation of the true blood "real" people over minorities and incomers. Leather.
I now have a horrible mental image of Trump in leathers. Thanks a bunch.
Sorry for that. But he is a bit "sniff the glove", don't you think?
Now you've set off a what does 'Trump's glove smell of' hare running.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
"Blairite efficiency"? What nation have you in mind for Ken's illegal war?
Probably an invasion of Cornwall to expand the Celtic territories.
Ken Skates actually proposed a memorial to Edward I in North Wales (semi-fascistically entitled the Ring of Iron)
So, I think Ken Skates would be supporting the Forces of HYUFD, as they move northwards to Bannockburn.
My guess is the coup is pencilled in for 12th May 2021 (a week after a disappointing set of Senedd elections).
The Sunday Times says the government have put out feelers to delay the May elections across the UK, most likely delayed to September.
As was said last week. I still cannot see the necessity given logistical challenges can be handled, but I think a lot of places where elections ar edue would be quite happy to delay, and the government won't care that much so long as it happens this year, so will concede.
There's two major issues, one is the campaigning issue, which means parties cannot campaign as normal and secondly the age of polling station staff/volunteers.
The cleaning process also means it isn't possible to to sufficient cleaning and keep the normal 7am and 10pm window.
Labour want the elections to happen.
However, it is understood that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is resistant to moving the elections. A London Labour source said: “The prime minister has promised the most vulnerable people will be vaccinated against Covid-19 by mid-February, which means there is no legitimate reason to consider postponing the elections. Countries around the world have managed to hold elections during the pandemic safely — including the US presidential election.”
Odd, local elections are very much not needed right now. I think September makes sense. The politicians won't say it, but even if the vaccines fail (I don't think they will, but still), there will be no lockdown of any kind come the autumn. This will be over one way or another.
I don't think that vaccines will fail, but they are not going to be the full answer either. Uptake will probably be around 70% in the at risk groups, lower in the general population, and there will be outbreaks despite it.
May elections can be postal, or perhaps even have American style early voting so as to minimise crowding.
Well the ‘full answer’, whatever that might be, cannot and must not include more lockdowns. The vaccination programme must be completed extremely quickly for the at-risk groups and then we unlock. Antivax idiots cannot be used as an excuse for ongoing authoritarianism, although no doubt Whitty and his disciples will try.
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
You´d hope for a bit more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Sadly for Farage- but hilariously for the rest of us- his meal ticket from the US far-right rubber chicken lecture circuit has just gone up in smoke. As for UK politics? A discount Enoch Powell without the after-life in Northern Ireland. Within a year or two, Nigel Who?
And yet he achieved one of the greatest changes in the political landscape of the UK in the last 70 years. The idea he will be forgotten - for better or worse - is laughable.
When I said that he was one of the most successful politicians of the past 50 years the only candidates people put up to show this wasn't so were, as I recall, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama.
Boris Johnson.
Even Steve Baker had a bigger impact in the last couple of years.
Nah Topping is absolutely right on this. Brexit simply wouldn't have happened without Farage banging away about it for years. He forced the Tories into a position where they had to finally address the issue once and for all. Boris may have got it over the line but he wouldn't have even been in the game were it not for Farage.
If Farage was banging away in isolation that would be fair enough.
But that completely ignores the Tory backbenchers who themselves were also banging away about it for years too.
Cameron didn't agree the referendum due to UKIP surging in the polls or winning the EP elections, he did so after around a hundred of his own MPs voted for one.
There was a crucial element within the Tory Party that were unhappy, just like there was in Labour in the seventies. Farage fed off that but he didn't do anything in a vacuum.
That element within the Tory party achieved nothing except to create a lot of light but no heat. They failed in the Major era and continued to fail throughout the Blair era. It was only when Farage and UKIP became a serious threat that they moved from being a minor fringe to being mainstream in the backbench party. Without the pressure Farage put on Tory MPs and his successes in the European elections nothing would have changed in the Tory party. There wold have been no referendum and no Brexit.
Farage's only mistake (or rather perhaps his biggest mistake amongst many) was not to realise when he had won and to think he had an importance beyond securing the referendum. To be horribly brutal about it he outgrew his usefulness and became a liability to the Leave side. That is not to say I am not hugely grateful for what he achieved but he needed to know when to stop and accept he had won.
Totally disagreed. You're making a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument.
They failed during the Major era in part, but essentially succeeded in destroying Major's tenure and ensuring the Conservative Party in future had to take them seriously - every single Tory leader post-Major took the Europe issue much more sceptically.
During the Blair years what could be achieved? The Tories were a minority, let alone an element of the Tories.
As soon as Cameron came to power the Tory backbenchers mattered. Cameron could distance himself from them a bit because he had the Lib Dems as allies bolstering his numbers - but he couldn't ignore them. 81 MPs from his own party demanding a referendum in 2011 (before UKIP took off) made it inevitable that Cameron would have to deal with the EU issue. When nearly a hundred of your own MPs are demanding it, then action becomes inevitable.
The MPs numbers mattered more than UKIP.
2011 was hardly before UKIP took off. They had already got 13 MEPs at the 2009 EU elections.
My guess is the coup is pencilled in for 12th May 2021 (a week after a disappointing set of Senedd elections).
The Sunday Times says the government have put out feelers to delay the May elections across the UK, most likely delayed to September.
As was said last week. I still cannot see the necessity given logistical challenges can be handled, but I think a lot of places where elections ar edue would be quite happy to delay, and the government won't care that much so long as it happens this year, so will concede.
There's two major issues, one is the campaigning issue, which means parties cannot campaign as normal and secondly the age of polling station staff/volunteers.
The cleaning process also means it isn't possible to to sufficient cleaning and keep the normal 7am and 10pm window.
Labour want the elections to happen.
However, it is understood that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is resistant to moving the elections. A London Labour source said: “The prime minister has promised the most vulnerable people will be vaccinated against Covid-19 by mid-February, which means there is no legitimate reason to consider postponing the elections. Countries around the world have managed to hold elections during the pandemic safely — including the US presidential election.”
Odd, local elections are very much not needed right now. I think September makes sense. The politicians won't say it, but even if the vaccines fail (I don't think they will, but still), there will be no lockdown of any kind come the autumn. This will be over one way or another.
I don't think that vaccines will fail, but they are not going to be the full answer either. Uptake will probably be around 70% in the at risk groups, lower in the general population, and there will be outbreaks despite it.
May elections can be postal, or perhaps even have American style early voting so as to minimise crowding.
From my contacts among the over 80's I think take up will be higher than 70%, TBH. Apart from the hyper-nats who 'want the English vaccine, not the foreign one"! Everyone I know wants the first one that comes!
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
When I brought this up yesterday I was shot down in flames because of the vaccine queue jumping kidney transplant Labour MP as reported in the Birmingham Mail, so be warned.
I would love to hear that Jenrick has already had both doses. I wonder what are the chances?
Without a very good reason that would indeed be very poor indeed. But accusations of corruption by getting friends and family ahead in the queue cannot be made lightly and laughed off because we dislike the people involved so it doesn't matter. If there is proof Boris intervened, that is outrageous. If there is no proof, then suggesting he did is outrageous no matter how much of a dick Boris is.
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and @Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
Any proof Boris facilitated this in any way? Or are you just ranting.
Father McJack is ranting once more.
Anyone else shocked to find an 80 year old receiving the vaccine.
Father McJack is so stupid he didn't realise that a chap in his 70s who had heart surgery also received the vaccine.
Surprise Surprise The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
When I brought this up yesterday I was shot down in flames because of the vaccine queue jumping kidney transplant Labour MP as reported in the Birmingham Mail, so be warned.
I would love to hear that Jenrick has already had both doses. I wonder what are the chances?
Without a very good reason that would indeed be very poor indeed. But accusations of corruption by getting friends and family ahead in the queue cannot be made lightly and laughed off because we dislike the people involved so it doesn't matter. If there is proof Boris intervened, that is outrageous. If there is no proof, then suggesting he did is outrageous no matter how much of a dick Boris is.
If Johnson was asked to do it, can anyone imagine him saying no?
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
You´d hope for a bit more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Sadly for Farage- but hilariously for the rest of us- his meal ticket from the US far-right rubber chicken lecture circuit has just gone up in smoke. As for UK politics? A discount Enoch Powell without the after-life in Northern Ireland. Within a year or two, Nigel Who?
And yet he achieved one of the greatest changes in the political landscape of the UK in the last 70 years. The idea he will be forgotten - for better or worse - is laughable.
When I said that he was one of the most successful politicians of the past 50 years the only candidates people put up to show this wasn't so were, as I recall, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama.
Boris Johnson.
Even Steve Baker had a bigger impact in the last couple of years.
Nah Topping is absolutely right on this. Brexit simply wouldn't have happened without Farage banging away about it for years. He forced the Tories into a position where they had to finally address the issue once and for all. Boris may have got it over the line but he wouldn't have even been in the game were it not for Farage.
If Farage was banging away in isolation that would be fair enough.
But that completely ignores the Tory backbenchers who themselves were also banging away about it for years too.
Cameron didn't agree the referendum due to UKIP surging in the polls or winning the EP elections, he did so after around a hundred of his own MPs voted for one.
There was a crucial element within the Tory Party that were unhappy, just like there was in Labour in the seventies. Farage fed off that but he didn't do anything in a vacuum.
That element within the Tory party achieved nothing except to create a lot of light but no heat. They failed in the Major era and continued to fail throughout the Blair era. It was only when Farage and UKIP became a serious threat that they moved from being a minor fringe to being mainstream in the backbench party. Without the pressure Farage put on Tory MPs and his successes in the European elections nothing would have changed in the Tory party. There wold have been no referendum and no Brexit.
Farage's only mistake (or rather perhaps his biggest mistake amongst many) was not to realise when he had won and to think he had an importance beyond securing the referendum. To be horribly brutal about it he outgrew his usefulness and became a liability to the Leave side. That is not to say I am not hugely grateful for what he achieved but he needed to know when to stop and accept he had won.
Totally disagreed. You're making a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument.
They failed during the Major era in part, but essentially succeeded in destroying Major's tenure and ensuring the Conservative Party in future had to take them seriously - every single Tory leader post-Major took the Europe issue much more sceptically.
During the Blair years what could be achieved? The Tories were a minority, let alone an element of the Tories.
As soon as Cameron came to power the Tory backbenchers mattered. Cameron could distance himself from them a bit because he had the Lib Dems as allies bolstering his numbers - but he couldn't ignore them. 81 MPs from his own party demanding a referendum in 2011 (before UKIP took off) made it inevitable that Cameron would have to deal with the EU issue. When nearly a hundred of your own MPs are demanding it, then action becomes inevitable.
The MPs numbers mattered more than UKIP.
2011 was hardly before UKIP took off. They had already got 13 MEPs at the 2009 EU elections.
EU elections are rather irrelevant, always were.
In 2011 UKIP were polling 4-5%, "others" territory. It was years later that their poll share took off.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Mark Drakeford is sweetly ineffectual. He just needs a bit of dusting, like all academics.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
"Blairite efficiency"? What nation have you in mind for Ken's illegal war?
Probably an invasion of Cornwall to expand the Celtic territories.
Ken Skates actually proposed a memorial to Edward I in North Wales (semi-fascistically entitled the Ring of Iron)
So, I think Ken Skates would be supporting the Forces of HYUFD, as they move northwards to Bannockburn.
Bloody Welsh archers, bain of a Scots Freeeedom fighter's life!
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and @Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
How do you prepare for importers deciding - how much paperwork? - that's not worth the hassle
Read most of this (vg) Header thinking it was Cyclefree and then it turns out to be Alastair Meeks. I'm losing it. What I'm not losing, though, is my facility to coin the right term for things. The one I've long used for Donald Trump - when I'm in a detached mood - is wannabe fascist and I'm sticking with this. This is what he has been - along with all the other things he undoubtedly is - ever since that ride down the golden escalator in 2015.
Thankfully he has not managed to drop the "w" qualifier and although one should not be complacent about it it's clear he never will. He's finished in politics now. This is the upside of the simultaneously frightening and shambolic events of last week. It was a complete mess of an affair. A very tittish coup. The real deal strongmen such as Putin and Xi would have been pissing themselves watching it on TV. "Oh Don, Don, Don. You crazy boy. Why didn't you get in touch?"
Eloquently put. And absolutely correct. Trump will leave office on Wednesday week as a spent, pathetic loser. A laughing stock.
Cheers thanks. Yes, you and I are the most confident on here about this, I think, that he's over as something serious in politics. I wish I was as confident he would see the inside of a jail cell but I have a feeling he won't.
Yeah, I agree that the balance of odds is against his jailing. But I’m confident he’ll wither rapidly as a force, and just become an increasingly pathetic joke: Sarah Palin is probably the nearest (but by no means precise) analogue.
Anyone remember her?
I don't think people will forget Trump. Maybe just send him to St Helena.
Too accessible now it has an airstrip.
Pitcairn.
If he comes to Prestwick, Nicola can exile him to Rockall.
A rock covered in seagull shit is just right for his new home.
We've got a few. There are still remains of the buildings used to imprison Covenanters on Bass Rock, Trump's Free Church Lewis ancestors may even approve of him joining the dissenting martyrs!
Hmm, as per James Robertson novel. But what has Lothian done to deserve Mr T? BTW gannet shite more than larid faeces. Been there, many years ago (before there was a fire and the gannets moved in to cover where the grassy top had been and those i/c discouraged visits). Must be very frustrating for a Leodheasach like you, seeing it and not being allowed to eat them.
Never been offered guga, but it's not exactly a regret. Not helped by my dad (who never saw a story that he didn't think needed embellishment) telling me about the olden days when the guga were packed and salted in outdoor pits, and the men of the house would pop out to help the process with an occasional pee.
I do find it difficult to believe Mr T would come to Scotland - imagine himself in a Doric or Ayrshire links course with the winter wind off the sea. Not to mention the potential for repeated conflict with the SG who wouldn't be able to afford to let Mr T show his usual care for covid precautions.
The numerous tanning parlours of the West of Scotland would be vying for the business though.
Things are so upside down that if Domnhail mór did come to Scotland, there's more likely to be a rapprochement between him and Salmond than between Salmond and Sturgeon. I can just imagine it..
'My good friend Alex who has been so badly treated by the fake media witch-hunt and failing Sturgeon government'
Well, I don't actually think it's likely, just less unlikely than Eck and Nicola patching it up. We're in a world where Scottish Tories and George Galloway are enthusiastically linking to Wings articles after all.
The second sentence was exactly my thoughts, on finding PBTories actually recommending a Wings piece the other day. Even stranger than @DavidL - a ScoTory - wanting tax rates to increase (much to his credit, given the reason he gave).
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and @Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.
I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
It seems like a bit of red meat being thrown out by Pelosi and Schumer to the base. There is a question mark whether it would get a majority in the House. The last figure I saw said over 150 House Democrats had signed but that still leaves several score who haven't and some have come out and at least one has said he will oppose it. There may be a handful of Republicans who sign but limited.
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
When you've just had your centre of government attacked, people killed, groups of organised paramilitaries with hostage clips, guns and pipe bombs threatening to hang the vice-president, and the president himself cheerfully having been on site to cheer on the whole thing just an hour before, it's a bit of a stretch to call going ahead with articles on impeachment "throwing red meat to the base".
I take that "red meant to the base" comment as an admission that the Dems are the party whose base it most interested in democracy.
This is the danger for Republicans right now: if they aren't seen as a party willing to defend democracy (and that doesn't necessarily mean impeachment, but it would probably help a great deal) then they are ceding pretty valuable electoral territory to their opponents.
I wouldn't mention it if I had any partisan dog in the fight, but really I couldn't give a toss who runs America, as long as they have a firm commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
I disagree. To leave proceedings until he leaves office would mean a trip to the SC before it could even reach the Senate. And I think there is a very good chance that he will be convicted.
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and @Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.
I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to. The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
It seems like a bit of red meat being thrown out by Pelosi and Schumer to the base. There is a question mark whether it would get a majority in the House. The last figure I saw said over 150 House Democrats had signed but that still leaves several score who haven't and some have come out and at least one has said he will oppose it. There may be a handful of Republicans who sign but limited.
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
When you've just had your centre of government attacked, people killed, groups of organised paramilitaries with hostage clips, guns and pipe bombs threatening to hang the vice-president, and the president himself cheerfully having been on site to cheer on the whole thing just an hour before, it's a bit of a stretch to call going ahead with articles on impeachment "throwing red meat to the base".
Pelosi and Schumer don't want Trump to be actually impeached, it's a signal to the base. It's the same with her call to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the nuclear codes. It's a stunt that is not designed to go anywhere.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
This. We'll probably here it a lot from Republicans in the Senate (I don't condone what he did, but this is not the time to stir up tensions etc) because it is an easy way out, a way to pretend problems do not need to be confronted to be solved.
My belief is that President Biden will pardon The Donald. It would be a mistake imo.
Not. A. Chance.
Ford acknowledged that his decision to pardon Nixon cost him the 1976 election. Biden's not stupid.
This caused a problem for Ford mainly because he'd been Nixon's VP (and an appointed VP at that following Agnew's resignation). So it fed into the impression that the pardon was part of a corrupt deal between Nixon and Ford. Ford always denied this, but it's likely there was some kind of implicit understanding at the time Nixon stepped down. That just isn't a problem Biden has.
I agree he won't pardon, though. I think it was possible before last week (albeit as mentioned it wouldn't help him for state prosecutions, only federal) as a lot of the possible legal proceedings against Trump could be dismissed as somewhat complex quasi-political issues, and pursuit of politics by other means. I felt he could have appeared magnanimous by pardoning (whilst making Trump sweat). That just isn't going to happen now - lawmakers were (correctly) in fear of their lives, and the scale of this dwarfs Ukraine, dubious business dealings and so on.
Conversely, I think a self-pardon has become much more likely... although the legality would no doubt be disputed and I wonder if the 25th Amendment is being kept somewhat on the table by Pence because he doesn't want to see a pardon covering matters related to an angry mob seeking to hang him from a tree (funnily enough).
I've seen some on the right calling for the nationalisation of Facebook and Twitter.
The tech companies have made sure that they will be one of the hot topics politically moving forwards. What might be a problem short-term is whether other political leaders might be looking at what they have done and thinking they should take some pre-emptive action. If I'm a Modi or a Bolsinaro (both of whom are accused of being Trump-like), I might look to ban the apps on national security grounds. Modi has already done this with Chinese apps in India.
The actual issue can be seen in the first post below that thread
But I do suspect a lot of countries will be trying to work out how to make local apps that they can have control of while others work out how to keep on using apps their Government has zero control over.
Poland has already passed a law saying apps which ban political opinions can be fined. I'm sure others will follow
The Polish government probably thinks that's their prerogative...
It seems pretty clear that Trump has strongly fascist tendencies - one of the good reasons why he lost the popular vote numerically both in 2016 and 2020. What the term 'fascist' conceals is that certain attitudes common in the world embrace pretty much the same attributes and are just as bad. Terms like 'left' and 'right' don't help much here either; nor does the idea of ideology, for that implies something rational, thoughtful and long term.
Better maybe to look for the common attributes of bad politics wherever it comes from, such as
The use of political violence Suppression of dissent Distancing from the civil democratic process Use of scapegoating Indifference to succession planning Friends and allies who fit a particular pattern Use of 'the lie direct'
The list can be extended of course. The attention, rightly, on the USA should not disguise how everyday and frequent these attributes are in the world and how useless are terms like 'left' and 'right' when dealing with authoritarians, totalitarians, narcissists and psychopaths.
But most of the real xxxs are right wing.
Language, vicar, language....
Sorry. Post zapped by mods (only 2nd time ever for me!) and rightly so on a Sunday.
Will cleanse and resubmit.
There's a fine line between a Kunstsprache and a ...
I welcome Kinabalu`s journey towards potty-mouthdom. Brings him down to our level.
That is the risk. But I have regrouped and re-elevated. I've even edited the bad word out in the chain so none can see. I am in the clear and we all move on.
I've seen some on the right calling for the nationalisation of Facebook and Twitter.
The tech companies have made sure that they will be one of the hot topics politically moving forwards. What might be a problem short-term is whether other political leaders might be looking at what they have done and thinking they should take some pre-emptive action. If I'm a Modi or a Bolsinaro (both of whom are accused of being Trump-like), I might look to ban the apps on national security grounds. Modi has already done this with Chinese apps in India.
The actual issue can be seen in the first post below that thread
But I do suspect a lot of countries will be trying to work out how to make local apps that they can have control of while others work out how to keep on using apps their Government has zero control over.
Poland has already passed a law saying apps which ban political opinions can be fined. I'm sure others will follow
The Polish government probably thinks that's their prerogative...
National governments actually do have a fair amount of power over these things. We've moved on a long way (for better or worse) from the Wild West days of the internet, and the fact national Governments (even fairly small ones like Poland's) do have tools at their disposal is why people like Nick Clegg have a job.
It seems pretty clear that Trump has strongly fascist tendencies - one of the good reasons why he lost the popular vote numerically both in 2016 and 2020. What the term 'fascist' conceals is that certain attitudes common in the world embrace pretty much the same attributes and are just as bad. Terms like 'left' and 'right' don't help much here either; nor does the idea of ideology, for that implies something rational, thoughtful and long term.
Better maybe to look for the common attributes of bad politics wherever it comes from, such as
The use of political violence Suppression of dissent Distancing from the civil democratic process Use of scapegoating Indifference to succession planning Friends and allies who fit a particular pattern Use of 'the lie direct'
The list can be extended of course. The attention, rightly, on the USA should not disguise how everyday and frequent these attributes are in the world and how useless are terms like 'left' and 'right' when dealing with authoritarians, totalitarians, narcissists and psychopaths.
But most of the real xxxs are right wing.
Language, vicar, language....
Sorry. Post zapped by mods (only 2nd time ever for me!) and rightly so on a Sunday.
Will cleanse and resubmit.
There's a fine line between a Kunstsprache and a ...
Mods! Although everything sounds rude in German, so I'm guessing that's ok. It probably means creamy donut.
I don't think Trump is a fascist. I don't think he has any attachment to any political philosophy. I don't think he has any sense of patriotism, let alone nationalism. He is entirely and totally in it for himself. There is nothing else. Because of that he will associate with anyone and anything that he believes will further his own interests. He took the election defeat as a personal humiliation (as it was) and because of that has sought to do whatever possible to overturn it, up to and including insurrection. Last Wednesday was a coup, but it was not one designed to promote an ideology or secure the interests of a class. It was all about Trump not being able to handle being a loser. That's why he authorised it. Though it was probably not why others took part.
Does one need an ideology to be classed as a fascist? I don’t think so.
Fascism is an ideology, isn't it?
Wikipedia says it’s a far right ideology - but I tend to think it’s more about dictatorships and oppression.
I find it hard to accept a definition for fascism that covers Pol Pot or Mao.
How would you classify them?
Totalitarians.
The Big 5 criteria for fascism -
Viewing a country as your personal property and yourself as its embodiment. Contempt for democracy and judicial independence. Opponents = Enemies. Fetishization of the Nation and its superiority over others - who are to be "beaten". Elevation of the true blood "real" people over minorities and incomers. Leather.
I now have a horrible mental image of Trump in leathers. Thanks a bunch.
Sorry for that. But he is a bit "sniff the glove", don't you think?
Now you've set off a what does 'Trump's glove smell of' hare running.
Going to leave that to Dura Ace. Horses for courses.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
It seems like a bit of red meat being thrown out by Pelosi and Schumer to the base. There is a question mark whether it would get a majority in the House. The last figure I saw said over 150 House Democrats had signed but that still leaves several score who haven't and some have come out and at least one has said he will oppose it. There may be a handful of Republicans who sign but limited.
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
When you've just had your centre of government attacked, people killed, groups of organised paramilitaries with hostage clips, guns and pipe bombs threatening to hang the vice-president, and the president himself cheerfully having been on site to cheer on the whole thing just an hour before, it's a bit of a stretch to call going ahead with articles on impeachment "throwing red meat to the base".
Pelosi and Schumer don't want Trump to be actually impeached, it's a signal to the base. It's the same with her call to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the nuclear codes. It's a stunt that is not designed to go anywhere.
Do you really mean they don't want him impeached or they don't want him convicted? Very different things.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
It seems like a bit of red meat being thrown out by Pelosi and Schumer to the base. There is a question mark whether it would get a majority in the House. The last figure I saw said over 150 House Democrats had signed but that still leaves several score who haven't and some have come out and at least one has said he will oppose it. There may be a handful of Republicans who sign but limited.
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
When you've just had your centre of government attacked, people killed, groups of organised paramilitaries with hostage clips, guns and pipe bombs threatening to hang the vice-president, and the president himself cheerfully having been on site to cheer on the whole thing just an hour before, it's a bit of a stretch to call going ahead with articles on impeachment "throwing red meat to the base".
Pelosi and Schumer don't want Trump to be actually impeached, it's a signal to the base. It's the same with her call to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the nuclear codes. It's a stunt that is not designed to go anywhere.
The problem is, whatever their strategic short-term goals may or may not be, in a situation as grave as this, that's not relevant. The legitimacy and integrity of America's entire political system is in fact at stake.
I've been considering why Democrats are pushing forward so quickly with impeachment rather than building a consensus (given, realistically, Trump won't be tried by the Senate until after he has left office). I'm wondering whether their real aim is NOT to secure a conviction but to trap GOP Senators into voting to acquit.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
I disagree. To leave proceedings until he leaves office would mean a trip to the SC before it could even reach the Senate. And I think there is a very good chance that he will be convicted.
Do you think the trial will happen before 20th (or on the morning of 20th)?
I doubt it. For one thing McConnell remains majority leader until 20th (and just possibly a couple of days after that depending on how quickly Georgia certify). That gives him a lot of control over business.
Impeachment is different - I think the House will move fairly promptly on that. But the fact they will move quickly, rather than leaving it a week or so to try to muster some more cross-party support, tends to suggest that their strategy is to push Republicans into a hasty acquittal soon after 20th, that they may well live to regret as the investigation proceeds.
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
You´d hope for a bit more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Sadly for Farage- but hilariously for the rest of us- his meal ticket from the US far-right rubber chicken lecture circuit has just gone up in smoke. As for UK politics? A discount Enoch Powell without the after-life in Northern Ireland. Within a year or two, Nigel Who?
And yet he achieved one of the greatest changes in the political landscape of the UK in the last 70 years. The idea he will be forgotten - for better or worse - is laughable.
When I said that he was one of the most successful politicians of the past 50 years the only candidates people put up to show this wasn't so were, as I recall, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama.
Of course this is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder and subject to the criteria you choose but I would suggest Angela Merkel and Tony Blair as obviously far more successful.
Many, many others would also knock Farage well down the list in my opinion (every PM has been 'more successful' imo).
Farage will be remembered for one thing only; the success of that one thing might age well, or might not.
Well again, to put him into the Merkel and Blair bucket is slightly making my point isn't it?
And whether Brexit is a success or failure doesn't change the fact that Farage brought it about.
I'm not putting him that bracket at all; rather, just listing a couple of obvious names of politicians who (along with Mandela, Thatcher, Obama, and others) are in a different universe of political success.
Nigel wanted to leave the EU and he convinced the whole country to vote for it when most of them hadn't really thought about it too much.
No Nigel no Brexit.
If you don't think that is a huge political achievement then I really do wonder.
He was the only one who seemed to realise the only thing the average punter noticed about the EU was mass immigration, and harnessed that to his existing Euroscepticism, whilst the ERG types banged on about treaties, theories, self governance, appendix ii of Chapter VI etc
If I had I been on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" in 2002, and were asked "Is the UK in the EU" for the £1m I reckon I'd have had to phone a friend
But the blokes you hang out with, would that have helped?
It seems pretty clear that Trump has strongly fascist tendencies - one of the good reasons why he lost the popular vote numerically both in 2016 and 2020. What the term 'fascist' conceals is that certain attitudes common in the world embrace pretty much the same attributes and are just as bad. Terms like 'left' and 'right' don't help much here either; nor does the idea of ideology, for that implies something rational, thoughtful and long term.
Better maybe to look for the common attributes of bad politics wherever it comes from, such as
The use of political violence Suppression of dissent Distancing from the civil democratic process Use of scapegoating Indifference to succession planning Friends and allies who fit a particular pattern Use of 'the lie direct'
The list can be extended of course. The attention, rightly, on the USA should not disguise how everyday and frequent these attributes are in the world and how useless are terms like 'left' and 'right' when dealing with authoritarians, totalitarians, narcissists and psychopaths.
True enough. But most of the worst blighters are right wing.
Nah that's rubbish. Extreme left and extreme right have equally as many evil feckers and no one side can claim to be better than the other. The ones that are better are the ones in the middle - on both left and right - who realise that ideology has its limits and that in the end personal responsibility and care for ones fellow man trumps (if you will the word) any political belief system.
Any belief system taken to its extreme is probably going to end up being dictatorial - I mean look at the one that says love your fellow man and see how badly that has been misused down the centuries.
I would be pretty much certain that between us you and I could match each other's list of evil bastards of the 20th century from the left and the right.
Come on, Richard. At the apex, maybe, or at least arguably, but down near the base? No way is it equal or even close. Most of the internet filth - social and political variety - comes from the hard right. It just does.
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
You´d hope for a bit more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Sadly for Farage- but hilariously for the rest of us- his meal ticket from the US far-right rubber chicken lecture circuit has just gone up in smoke. As for UK politics? A discount Enoch Powell without the after-life in Northern Ireland. Within a year or two, Nigel Who?
And yet he achieved one of the greatest changes in the political landscape of the UK in the last 70 years. The idea he will be forgotten - for better or worse - is laughable.
When I said that he was one of the most successful politicians of the past 50 years the only candidates people put up to show this wasn't so were, as I recall, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama.
Boris Johnson.
Even Steve Baker had a bigger impact in the last couple of years.
Your kidding, right? Without Nigel there would have been no Brexit. I mean I enjoy discussing with people about this because it is so transparently obvious that I can do something useful, such as ring my aged aunt at the same time as posting about it.
No I am not kidding. Backbenchers were more important than Farage.
Backbenchers were the reason Major struggled with Maastricht rebellions. Backbenchers were the reason Cameron was forced to concede the referendum, before UKIP took off in the polls. Backbenchers were the reason Theresa May failed to get her deal through.
Farage was a noisy bystander jumping on the bandwagon. If it wasn't for the backbenchers then May would have got her deal through, Cameron would never have needed to offer a referendum, Major would not have seen the party torn apart over Maastricht.
This could have happened with or without Farage. It couldn't have happened without backbenchers.
No Nigel no Brexit.
What did Bill Cash achieve? Fuck all.
Wrong.
Cash achieved Brexit.
No Farage and Brexit is still very much an issue because the MPs of the Governing party made it one.
No Tory Brexiteers and Farage is just a loudmouth pub bore.
It was Tory MPs that brought about Brexit, not Farage.
Yes, and no. Tory MPs played a key role in bringing about the referendum, for sure. Although you can make a case that Farage and UKIP both challenging them and infiltrating their local parties were not insignificant contributors.
But Brexit was achieved by the narrow referendum win, and, as Cummo recognised from the outset, this victory was only achieved by locking Cash and his ilk in a basement far from public view, during the campaign.
And Farage and his ilk were locked away too.
There's a reason that Boris was the front man of the campaign and Farage led the Leave.EU sideshow.
Of course. When the need to spin the big con arrives, you need a professional con artist, not an amateur.
Philip was a Remainer until Boris decided which article to publish.
Unfair. Philip was "turned" by the combined forces of Casino Royale, Richard Tyndall, and Michael Gove. That is from the horse's.
A very well written and argued article by Alastair, as is usual with his pieces. Unfortunately, it comes from the same mindset that dominates much of the discussion on here which is to ask, when deciding to condemn something or not, "who is doing it?" rather than "is the act wrong?".
First of all, Trump is not a wannabee dictator who dreams of gleaming jackboots marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. His mindset is of a CEO: he's conditioned to giving orders and having them obeyed. It's why business leaders make bad political leaders because they are unaccustomed to the checks and balances of political systems and why he gets mad at SC judges or political appointees not following his whims. But the idea he wants a fascist regime out of the pages of Gilead is fantasy doom-porn thinking on the part of the Democrats who need something to keep their coalition together. It wasn't sinister Government forces that led to a light Police presence at last week's demo, it was the Capitol Police assumed they would not be trouble, which (conversely) is why the National Guard were deployed for BLM rallies, which had a habit of ending in disturbances.
As for impeaching him or not, the reason for saying it would cause division is not the prosecution itself: if he has committed impeachable offences, he should be tried. It is because everyone knows it would be selective and based on targeting the individual involved rather than the act itself is worthy of impeachable. The same people on here who argue most vehemently that Trump is guilty of treason are the same ones who tie themselves in knots arguing why Democrat politicians encouraging BLM protests even given the violence. You want Trump charged with incitement? Sure go ahead. But I think Kamala Harris who said BLM protests should continue to the election, also was recklessly inciting violence, even though she covered her ass with the mealy mouthed "violence is never right". She is a political and ex-AG. She knew how her words about the protests would be interpreted.
And for all those lawyers on here who are so exercised about the constitutional damage Trump has caused, where's your outrage over Nancy Pelosi - who has absolutely no role in this under the US Constitution - calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the nuclear chain of command? Everyone knows it was a stunt but it's a dangerous one. But who of the many on here who get so exercised about little action Trump does criticised something that potentially has very far-reaching consequences?
Read "Why Nations Fail". One of the key points in there for a nation's success or not is that everyone feels as though the rules and laws are fair and applied to all. If there is going to be anything that destroys trust democracy, it is going to be this selective picking of what is right or wrong.
That's a very long way of saying that the law should be applied equally to all.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky. But that's what you are saying in essence. And you're right. The laws on incitement and violence etc should be applied equally to all. As should all other laws eg on the right to vote.
Part of the difficulty the US has is that this has not been happening. Blacks feel that their right to vote is being slowly salami-sliced away by the various voter suppression techniques being used. Or that their right to walk the streets freely without being constantly picked and questioned by the police is less than it should be. Other groups will have their own complaints.
And what makes this particularly toxic is that in some cases one group which feels ignored feels that it needs to do down another group to feel better about itself. This racist legacy was deliberately stoked by Trump.
If Trump broke laws he should be prosecuted. I understand all the arguments for "healing" but that seems like a pretext for avoiding accountability for one's actions. To have genuine healing there needs to be justice first.
The argument that Trump should carry on his acts of sedition post Presidency in the name of "healing" is utterly ridiculous.
I am not a big fan of Mark Drakeford, were I to stand outside the Sennedd and incite a bunch of people even less enthused by Drakeford than I am, and they were armed with cable ties, ropes and assorted weaponry to enter the building, it would not look good. If they then entered the chamber with malice aforethought and damaged property, but were thwarted from taking matters further I would be looking at a growing charge sheet. If, sadly in securing the Senedd a South Wales Police Officer and three protestors were killed I would be in Butetown Police Station awaiting my Magistrates appearance prior to being remanded for Crown Court later.
I think a coup to overthrow Drakeford could be manned just from PB. I see BigG in the Trump role there, though, not you. Hope no offence taken.
I reckon I could get both BigG. and the Sleeping Bard on side, and in the building. I am planning the stand on the steps outside pretending it has nothing to do with me. Much like Trump did last week.
Good call. But dropping this whimsy now. Ruffling feathers that are best left unruffled.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
The latest poll from Opinium this weekend does not suggest that and suggests Starmer made the right call.
Labour having voted for the Deal are on 40%, up 8% on their GE19 voteshare, the LDs having voted against the Deal are on just 6%, down 5% on their GE19 voteshare.
Your main problem (and there are many) is that you think a single opinion poll now is the long term outlook. The call - right or wrong - won't be something that manifests itself now. It is a future impact of the call. An opinion poll now is irrelevant. As you know. Yet you post it anyway.
This poll confirms what I have believed for most of 2020 - that in terms of electoral salience , Brexit is already pretty much a dead issue.
Comments
All he has to do is sit back as the states prosecute Trump et. al.
No federal pardon could effect state proceedings.
So Biden can say - "I'm not persecuting Trump. The states are prosecuting him. I can't interfere - States Rights!"
The question of Federally prosecuting Trump (who will probably be in a state prison at that point) will come up late in K. Harris second term.
It might be absurd (as are a number of their contributions), but everyone knows what it is, and they add considerable value (on balance) to the site. We all wind each other up on occasion, but persisting in doing so too much smacks of intolerance.
Things are so upside down that if Domnhail mór did come to Scotland, there's more likely to be a rapprochement between him and Salmond than between Salmond and Sturgeon. I can just imagine it..
'My good friend Alex who has been so badly treated by the fake media witch-hunt and failing Sturgeon government'
You tosser.
The logic is that, at the moment, the defence of Trump is essentially that he was a fool who didn't realise what forces he was unleashing. But will that argument stand up in six months time? We're already seeing that there was a hell of a lot more to this than a gurning knob-head carrying a lectern and a mentally ill man dressed as a Viking. Feds are going to be all over this, and a lot of people are going to be shook down and a lot of emails read. How likely is it that there's a smoking gun involving of one of Trump's idiot sons, or General Flynn, or even the man himself? How likely is it that this was war-gamed in one of Trump's meetings with his dwindling band of increasingly fruity advisors since November? Fairly likely, I'd suggest.
Going for an early, unsuccessful impeachment trial means Democrats have GOP Senators who vote to acquit implicated if this looks even worse for Trump in six months than it does now - which is a very real risk indeed.
Given that, I'm wondering if the best way for the GOP to avoid that nightmare scenario is to find themselves unable to attend the trial and vote on conviction. That may indeed be enough to convict, given the 2/3rds is of all Senators voting. If Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in fairly promptly, and Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey vote to convict, 18 no-shows would do it, which is high but not totally implausible.
The tech companies have made sure that they will be one of the hot topics politically moving forwards. What might be a problem short-term is whether other political leaders might be looking at what they have done and thinking they should take some pre-emptive action. If I'm a Modi or a Bolsinaro (both of whom are accused of being Trump-like), I might look to ban the apps on national security grounds. Modi has already done this with Chinese apps in India.
Seeing Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka turn on papa to save their arses will be fun to watch.
Mark has asked the coronavirus to go away very nicely.
But, the nasty virus isn't very kind and hasn't listened to Mark.
It would be really, really cruel to organise a coup against Mark -- it would be like stealing milk from the saucer of a poorly cat.
Ken Skates is the slick brute of a man to organise the coup. He will get the job done with Blairite efficiency.
Strange how you are never quite able to have a proper conversation... you lose track of what the conversation was about, exactly like... a chatbot.
Hmmm
I can see the attraction of getting some Republican senators to vote against it but you are left with the issue that, if it is done this time, it creates a recurring cycle of impeachments as each side takes a pop at their opponents.
https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/1348128268495458306
But I do suspect a lot of countries will be trying to work out how to make local apps that they can have control of while others work out how to keep on using apps their Government has zero control over.
The prime minister has allowed his father Stanley Johnson to receive the 2nd vaccine whilst care workers and NHS staff wait 12 weeks (and some still waiting for their first!)
What a kick in the teeth to frontline staff!!
His big liability - then asset - and now liability again, in life, is that he has an extremist personality.
A moderate, he is not.
Now, for the other dumb people here (or maybe I'm the ONLY dumb one?) what in the FUCK are you on about?
THough you might be right re the Weegie Tan:
https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/7895
https://twitter.com/stuartklau/status/1348191638535999493
Ironically it now chiefly works against - in Scotland - Labour and the Lib Dems.
Ardern is soft on China.
May elections can be postal, or perhaps even have American style early voting so as to minimise crowding.
They failed during the Major era in part, but essentially succeeded in destroying Major's tenure and ensuring the Conservative Party in future had to take them seriously - every single Tory leader post-Major took the Europe issue much more sceptically.
During the Blair years what could be achieved? The Tories were a minority, let alone an element of the Tories.
As soon as Cameron came to power the Tory backbenchers mattered. Cameron could distance himself from them a bit because he had the Lib Dems as allies bolstering his numbers - but he couldn't ignore them. 81 MPs from his own party demanding a referendum in 2011 (before UKIP took off) made it inevitable that Cameron would have to deal with the EU issue. When nearly a hundred of your own MPs are demanding it, then action becomes inevitable.
The MPs numbers mattered more than UKIP.
I would love to hear that Jenrick has already had both doses. I wonder what are the chances?
This man heads up the federation of those that move perishable goods. The whole thread is worth a read. While he is talking about businesses left in the lurch by their own government having to sort things out themselves, it surely will also apply sooner or later to government too. No-one will enjoy this.
https://twitter.com/ColdChainShane/status/1347885454666969089
https://twitter.com/ColdChainShane/status/1347885451726749696
So, I think Ken Skates would be supporting the Forces of HYUFD, as they move northwards to Bannockburn.
Everyone I know wants the first one that comes!
This is all their own fault.
Anyone else shocked to find an 80 year old receiving the vaccine.
Father McJack is so stupid he didn't realise that a chap in his 70s who had heart surgery also received the vaccine.
NEW THREAD
In 2011 UKIP were polling 4-5%, "others" territory. It was years later that their poll share took off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election_(2010–2012)#2011
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1348186277116571648
I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
This is the danger for Republicans right now: if they aren't seen as a party willing to defend democracy (and that doesn't necessarily mean impeachment, but it would probably help a great deal) then they are ceding pretty valuable electoral territory to their opponents.
I wouldn't mention it if I had any partisan dog in the fight, but really I couldn't give a toss who runs America, as long as they have a firm commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
To leave proceedings until he leaves office would mean a trip to the SC before it could even reach the Senate.
And I think there is a very good chance that he will be convicted.
The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
I agree he won't pardon, though. I think it was possible before last week (albeit as mentioned it wouldn't help him for state prosecutions, only federal) as a lot of the possible legal proceedings against Trump could be dismissed as somewhat complex quasi-political issues, and pursuit of politics by other means. I felt he could have appeared magnanimous by pardoning (whilst making Trump sweat). That just isn't going to happen now - lawmakers were (correctly) in fear of their lives, and the scale of this dwarfs Ukraine, dubious business dealings and so on.
Conversely, I think a self-pardon has become much more likely... although the legality would no doubt be disputed and I wonder if the 25th Amendment is being kept somewhat on the table by Pence because he doesn't want to see a pardon covering matters related to an angry mob seeking to hang him from a tree (funnily enough).
I doubt it. For one thing McConnell remains majority leader until 20th (and just possibly a couple of days after that depending on how quickly Georgia certify). That gives him a lot of control over business.
Impeachment is different - I think the House will move fairly promptly on that. But the fact they will move quickly, rather than leaving it a week or so to try to muster some more cross-party support, tends to suggest that their strategy is to push Republicans into a hasty acquittal soon after 20th, that they may well live to regret as the investigation proceeds.