Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
U.S. intelligence community agrees coronavirus was not developed as a biological weapon, but remains divided on whether it emerged through animals or a lab incident https://t.co/vzMXkSRt5f
What are we asking the US intelligence community for when this is the home of Leon Report? Pfff, next someone will quote some pesky scientist or something stupid.
lol. What a big old pile of piffle to basically say Fuck Knows
The bioweapon thesis was always the least likely. Tho that does not - note - rule out the possibility that the Chinese Military was interested in Wuhan's research into coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapon in the future. We know they were. The evidence is public
It was always extremely unlikely the Chinese would release a viral bioweapon now (why? As China rises anyway?), especially without having a vaccine ready to go. Bonkers.
We will probably never know, China has hidden the evidence and it is too late to prove anything. For me the other evidence, the circumstantial evidence, points comprehensively to lab leak. Others will differ. Fair enough
However there really should be an investigation into those scientists and journalists who conspired, from the start, to unjustly suppress the lab leak hypothesis - and they did conspire. People like Daszak, etc. That was so unprofessional as to border on criminal.
Fits with their view that Trump won the election even though the vote counting says he didn't.
Impossible things before breakfast brigade.
What I find frightening is how people like @MrEd - who are far from idiots - are still waiting with baited breath for the results of the Maricopa audit.
I've never really been into pets. My brother and sister are, but I'm not. I'm open to having a cat - Mrs J loves them - but we've decided to check we can raise a child before going for the more onerous task of raising a kitten.
I've never really been into pets. My brother and sister are, but I'm not. I'm open to having a cat - Mrs J loves them - but we've decided to check we can raise a child before going for the more onerous task of raising a kitten.
Please google toxoplasmosis first. Is it worth the risk of blindness and brain damage?
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
Can it get much worse for Biden?
Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.
I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.
Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
It also has spending on actual infastructure in it.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
To me the questions are: 1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out? 2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?
If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.
To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?
And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.
By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most
I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it did quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks
The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it ever day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated
Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on my I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over
Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I diapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
Cats most certainly are not idiots. They are very smart. That’s why they have servants whilst dogs have masters.
Yep. I couldn't sit down at the dining table earlier because the neighbours' cat was sprawled out across two chairs.
I've never really been into pets. My brother and sister are, but I'm not. I'm open to having a cat - Mrs J loves them - but we've decided to check we can raise a child before going for the more onerous task of raising a kitten.
Please google toxoplasmosis first. Is it worth the risk of blindness and brain damage?
I spent a year walking around the UK, I'm currently trying to run every day this year, and I'm trying to run every road and path (*) in an area between Cambridge, Huntingdon, Sandy and Royston.
I think it's a bit too late to worry about being damaged in the old noggin department ...
U.S. intelligence community agrees coronavirus was not developed as a biological weapon, but remains divided on whether it emerged through animals or a lab incident https://t.co/vzMXkSRt5f
What are we asking the US intelligence community for when this is the home of Leon Report? Pfff, next someone will quote some pesky scientist or something stupid.
lol. What a big old pile of piffle to basically say Fuck Knows
The bioweapon thesis was always the least likely. Tho that does not - note - rule out the possibility that the Chinese Military was interested in Wuhan's research into coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapon in the future. We know they were. The evidence is public
It was always extremely unlikely the Chinese would release a viral bioweapon now (why? As China rises anyway?), especially without having a vaccine ready to go. Bonkers.
We will probably never know, China has hidden the evidence and it is too late to prove anything. For me the other evidence, the circumstantial evidence, points comprehensively to lab leak. Others will differ. Fair enough
However there really should be an investigation into those scientists and journalists who conspired, from the start, to unjustly suppress the lab leak hypothesis - and they did conspire. People like Daszak, etc. That was so unprofessional as to border on criminal.
It was fairly obvious from the start that we, the public, would never know. It was fairly likely that the intelligence community and the most informed scientists would never know either, although those groups had some chance.
The sensible option in such circumstances is to be agnostic about it rather than veering heavily to one theory or another.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
U.S. intelligence community agrees coronavirus was not developed as a biological weapon, but remains divided on whether it emerged through animals or a lab incident https://t.co/vzMXkSRt5f
What are we asking the US intelligence community for when this is the home of Leon Report? Pfff, next someone will quote some pesky scientist or something stupid.
lol. What a big old pile of piffle to basically say Fuck Knows
The bioweapon thesis was always the least likely. Tho that does not - note - rule out the possibility that the Chinese Military was interested in Wuhan's research into coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapon in the future. We know they were. The evidence is public
It was always extremely unlikely the Chinese would release a viral bioweapon now (why? As China rises anyway?), especially without having a vaccine ready to go. Bonkers.
We will probably never know, China has hidden the evidence and it is too late to prove anything. For me the other evidence, the circumstantial evidence, points comprehensively to lab leak. Others will differ. Fair enough
However there really should be an investigation into those scientists and journalists who conspired, from the start, to unjustly suppress the lab leak hypothesis - and they did conspire. People like Daszak, etc. That was so unprofessional as to border on criminal.
It was fairly obvious from the start that we, the public, would never know. It was fairly likely that the intelligence community and the most informed scientists would never know either, although those groups had some chance.
The sensible option in such circumstances is to be agnostic about it rather than veering heavily to one theory or another.
This argument begins to bore me but without direct evidence - a video of a lab leak, as pecimen animal that shows natural zoonosis - we must rely on circumstantial evidence. And that REALLY keeps piling up on the side of lab leak. It just does. Arguing otherwise is futile.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
Labour MPs play the class war card against Rishi this evening
'From 6th Oct, 15,350 working age families in my constituency will plunge further into poverty due to the £20 cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit.
Meanwhile the Tory Chancellor will add a new swimming pool, 4 showers and a tennis court to his 1.5m Grade II-listed manor'
It doesn't seem fair the Chancellor has all these lavish private residences while the Prime Minister has to slum it in his tied cottage/public sector flat.
Could we not gift him Chequers as a thank you for winning the war on Covid?
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
I'm a posh male Tory pensioner, except that the money I live on is technically not a pension, and I bet I spend more both absolutely and in relative terms on animal welfare than you do.
Mind you, I do love to hunt a fox where it is safe and legal to do so (County Galway). Probably very wrong of me.
edit and no longer a tory, which probably weakens my point a bit.
further edit: and it's a stretch to call hunting in Galway safe. Dem walls...
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Just think how many decaying American cities could have been revitalised with that money.
British teenager Emma Raducanu reached the US Open main draw for the first time with a dominant win over Egypt's Mayar Sherif in her final qualifier.
Well played, only 2 players younger than her are now ranked higher globally, and one of those is Cory Gauff. Hopefully another top 20 player in the making.
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Just think how many decaying American cities could have been revitalised with that money.
It was the destruction of the centre of the biggest US city on 9/11 which was the reason for the invasion in the first place
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Just think how many decaying American cities could have been revitalised with that money.
Alternatively, once they had caught Bin Laden and destroyed most of Al-Qaeda, they could have switched tack and subsidised Western companies to employ Afghans at $5,000 per year. Fairly quickly the attractions of the taliban would have been heavily diminished if most Afghans had a real stake in protecting the country's new economy.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
I'm a posh male Tory pensioner, except that the money I live on is technically not a pension, and I bet I spend more both absolutely and in relative terms on animal welfare than you do.
Mind you, I do love to hunt a fox where it is safe and legal to do so (County Galway). Probably very wrong of me.
edit and no longer a tory, which probably weakens my point a bit.
further edit: and it's a stretch to call hunting in Galway safe. Dem walls...
British teenager Emma Raducanu reached the US Open main draw for the first time with a dominant win over Egypt's Mayar Sherif in her final qualifier.
Worth noting that Katie Boulter has also qualified. Harriet Dart has lost the first set of her final qualifier on a tie break though. With Konta and Watson already in the draw. Been a while since British women's tennis has had such depth.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
I'm a posh male Tory pensioner, except that the money I live on is technically not a pension, and I bet I spend more both absolutely and in relative terms on animal welfare than you do.
Mind you, I do love to hunt a fox where it is safe and legal to do so (County Galway). Probably very wrong of me.
edit and no longer a tory, which probably weakens my point a bit.
further edit: and it's a stretch to call hunting in Galway safe. Dem walls...
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
The BBC article you posted said they were openly present in 50% of the country in 2017.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
I'm a posh male Tory pensioner, except that the money I live on is technically not a pension, and I bet I spend more both absolutely and in relative terms on animal welfare than you do.
Mind you, I do love to hunt a fox where it is safe and legal to do so (County Galway). Probably very wrong of me.
edit and no longer a tory, which probably weakens my point a bit.
further edit: and it's a stretch to call hunting in Galway safe. Dem walls...
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Just think how many decaying American cities could have been revitalised with that money.
It was the destruction of the centre of the biggest US city on 9/11 which was the reason for the invasion in the first place
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Just think how many decaying American cities could have been revitalised with that money.
Alternatively, once they had caught Bin Laden and destroyed most of Al-Qaeda, they could have switched tack and subsidised Western companies to employ Afghans at $5,000 per year. Fairly quickly the attractions of the taliban would have been heavily diminished if most Afghans had a real stake in protecting the country's new economy.
The Military Industrial Complex is about American jobs, not Afghani jobs.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
The BBC article you posted said they were openly present in 50% of the country in 2017.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
They controlled less than 10% of the country, the fact they had not been all killed does not change that.
It is Biden who allowed them back in control of the whole country
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
The BBC article you posted said they were openly present in 50% of the country in 2017.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
They controlled less than 10% of the country, the fact they had not been all killed does not change that.
It is Biden who allowed them back in control of the whole country
10% or 100% what difference does it make?
They had safe harbour and territory because Bush and Blair didn't finish the job two decades ago. The rest is details.
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
Get a poll from 2 years ago prior to the election and see what the figures are.
62% of Republicans, even higher, say the withdrawal would have been wrong if Al Qaeda and jihadi terrorists return so the divide is ideological now not just personal.
Finally neoconservatism and interventionism is making a comeback in the GOP base
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
The BBC article you posted said they were openly present in 50% of the country in 2017.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
They controlled less than 10% of the country, the fact they had not been all killed does not change that.
It is Biden who allowed them back in control of the whole country
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
The BBC article you posted said they were openly present in 50% of the country in 2017.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
They controlled less than 10% of the country, the fact they had not been all killed does not change that.
It is Biden who allowed them back in control of the whole country
10% or 100% what difference does it make?
They had safe harbour and territory because Bush and Blair didn't finish the job two decades ago. The rest is details.
The difference is everything, it is Biden and Harris who lost the war and Biden and Harris who let the Taliban back in control of the country
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
And incredibly off beam.
In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.
And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
He was involved with a Romania princess at one point.
Power.. ?? Certainly not being alluring.. at least, as a guy I can't see it. I thought he was ghastly as a person.
De gustibus... I know two women, both anti-Tory, who think Boris is devastingly attractive, and one Tory woman who thought Brown was ruggedly handsome. Fortunately, there's someone for everyone, eh? I once came second in a Nottingham Post poll of sexiest local MPs, just behind Alan Simpson and narrowly pipping Ken Clarke. It cheered me for at least 10 seconds
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Delighted that Seralex was able to persuade Ronaldo not to join Citeh and instead come home to Old Trafford. Whether he turns out to be a returning talisman or an old giffer, he's the kind of marquee signing every club needs even at 136 years of age.
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
Can it get much worse for Biden?
Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.
I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.
Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.
What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?
Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.
We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.
We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.
There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.
HOWEVER.
Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?
The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it?
The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
Almost all US debt is fixed interest. So the cost of debt is not linked to inflation, no.
It needs to be rolled over though. It'll be a lagging factor, but inflation will kick in. Tax revenues should lead any such change, and therefore its nothing to worry about assuming governments see any inflationary rise in tax as what it is (slim hope!).
That is certainly true. But don't forget the concept of fiscal drag: tax rises increase faster than economic growth.
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
Get a poll from 2 years ago prior to the election and see what the figures are.
62% of Republicans, even higher, say the withdrawal would have been wrong if Al Qaeda and jihadi terrorists return so the divide is ideological now not just personal.
Finally neoconservatism and interventionism is making a comeback in the GOP base
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Good point. His whole apparatus seems engaged in arse saving behaviour of the highest order. Afghans, allows, even US nationals all chucked under the bus. At least we will be spared the bollocks about Joe being compassionate and decent when he is up for re-election.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Good point. His whole apparatus seems engaged in arse saving behaviour of the highest order. Afghans, allows, even US nationals all chucked under the bus. At least we will be spared the bollocks about Joe being compassionate and decent when he is up for re-election.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
Ah, so you agree the Taliban were not gone and were in fact still in Afghanistan.
They were gone from power and from the Afghan government yes until Biden withdrew and enabled them to retake the capital and become the Afghan government yes
The BBC article you posted said they were openly present in 50% of the country in 2017.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
They controlled less than 10% of the country, the fact they had not been all killed does not change that.
It is Biden who allowed them back in control of the whole country
10% or 100% what difference does it make?
They had safe harbour and territory because Bush and Blair didn't finish the job two decades ago. The rest is details.
The difference is everything, it is Biden and Harris who lost the war and Biden and Harris who let the Taliban back in control of the country
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
Can it get much worse for Biden?
Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.
I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.
Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.
What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?
Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.
We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.
We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.
There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.
HOWEVER.
Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?
The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it?
The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
Almost all US debt is fixed interest. So the cost of debt is not linked to inflation, no.
It needs to be rolled over though. It'll be a lagging factor, but inflation will kick in. Tax revenues should lead any such change, and therefore its nothing to worry about assuming governments see any inflationary rise in tax as what it is (slim hope!).
That is certainly true. But don't forget the concept of fiscal drag: tax rises increase faster than economic growth.
I agree with you and have made a very similar point in the past about the UK too.
The unspoken truth right now is that a bit of inflation wouldn't be a bad thing for the West to bring our debts down to size. Will also help to rebalance house prices and others too without negative equity.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
Er, reference for this statement?
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'" https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Good point. His whole apparatus seems engaged in arse saving behaviour of the highest order. Afghans, allows, even US nationals all chucked under the bus. At least we will be spared the bollocks about Joe being compassionate and decent when he is up for re-election.
You think old man Joe will be up for re-election? 😂
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
Get a poll from 2 years ago prior to the election and see what the figures are.
62% of Republicans, even higher, say the withdrawal would have been wrong if Al Qaeda and jihadi terrorists return so the divide is ideological now not just personal.
Finally neoconservatism and interventionism is making a comeback in the GOP base
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Wait.
It's Christmas or Easter?
Which one??? I need to go buy Easter Eggs or presents immediately.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
Er, reference for this statement?
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'" https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
I am losing track of how many times today I have seen that quote.
But it has no bearing on whether Biden did all this to "work off an old score" which seems to me a completely unsubstantiated and frankly ridiculous comment.
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
Can it get much worse for Biden?
Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.
I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.
Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.
What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?
Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.
We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.
We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.
There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.
HOWEVER.
Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?
The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it?
The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
Almost all US debt is fixed interest. So the cost of debt is not linked to inflation, no.
It needs to be rolled over though. It'll be a lagging factor, but inflation will kick in. Tax revenues should lead any such change, and therefore its nothing to worry about assuming governments see any inflationary rise in tax as what it is (slim hope!).
That is certainly true. But don't forget the concept of fiscal drag: tax rises increase faster than economic growth.
I agree with you and have made a very similar point in the past about the UK too.
The unspoken truth right now is that a bit of inflation wouldn't be a bad thing for the West to bring our debts down to size. Will also help to rebalance house prices and others too without negative equity.
The second point is really quite important in the UK. What we don't want it a situation where house prices are normalised without a touch of inflation.
Fits with their view that Trump won the election even though the vote counting says he didn't.
Impossible things before breakfast brigade.
What I find frightening is how people like @MrEd - who are far from idiots - are still waiting with baited breath for the results of the Maricopa audit.
Not even any toothpaste? Alarming indeed.
Can’t find your original post @rcs1000 but do you seriously think I give a flying fuck about the Maricopa audit or indeed what’s happening in Georgia? Trump lost. We all know that.
But, hey, if you can show me the 100+ posts I wrote about the Maricopa audit, I’ll take it back. Otherwise, you might just be talking out of your arse….
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Good point. His whole apparatus seems engaged in arse saving behaviour of the highest order. Afghans, allows, even US nationals all chucked under the bus. At least we will be spared the bollocks about Joe being compassionate and decent when he is up for re-election.
You think old man Joe will be up for re-election? 😂
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Wait.
It's Christmas or Easter?
Which one??? I need to go buy Easter Eggs or presents immediately.
Technically it is Christmas, judging by the tabloids already running stories about whether you will be able to buy a big enough turkey for the whole family.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
Biden approval under 50% in 3 out of 4 of the latest polls, so Biden still has the lowest approval rating for any President at this stage of their Presidency in the last 50 years after Trump and Bill Clinton.
Both of course saw their parties trounced in their first midterms, the Democrats are also below 50% in every poll
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
It’s possible to love animals while despising PETA
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Wait.
It's Christmas or Easter?
Which one??? I need to go buy Easter Eggs or presents immediately.
Technically it is Christmas, judging by the tabloids already running stories about whether you will be able to buy a big enough turkey for the whole family.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
It’s possible to love animals while despising PETA
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
That’s one poll in CA Nick. Could be right but so could the one suggesting the recall up 11pc
Newsom (unlike Biden) has a positive approval rating: he's +7 based on the last couple of opinion polls, so if he's recalled, it will be solely on the differential turnout.
And I believe that the likeliest date for the Larry Elder recall election (for there would undoubtedly be one if he were to win), would be February 22nd.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
That’s one poll in CA Nick. Could be right but so could the one suggesting the recall up 11pc
Yes, but that was taken 3 weeks ago, and there have been three Keep polls since with increasing margins?
But I don't profess to understand why anyone of any party likes the recall system as it operates there. It seems entirely mad, especially the fact that if it succeeds you get an almost random person taking over, who in turn will almost certainly be subject to recall. Do Californians have infinite money to blow on this sort of thing?
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Wait.
It's Christmas or Easter?
Which one??? I need to go buy Easter Eggs or presents immediately.
Technically it is Christmas, judging by the tabloids already running stories about whether you will be able to buy a big enough turkey for the whole family.
QVC have been running Christmas shows already.
When does the Christmas Movie channel start up?
I was trying to watch some Christmas movies on Prime the other day, but now they have to be rented or bought, not coming free with Prime - possibly a sign the new batch are almost ready for release.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Why do you think the democract-supporting journalists would only write about the most controversial republican candidates*
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Mr Ed is right. Biden, it turns out, is a heartless c*nt
Which is not always a bad thing in a president, see JFK, FDR, Andrew Jackson. All pretty ruthless and cold, in their own way. It might even be a necessary attribute. You need to make tough decisions, that will kill people, and walk away emotionally unscathed. That takes a deal of c*untishness
The trouble with Biden is that he is an INEPT OLD heartless c*nt. He doesn't even do it very well. That's bad
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
I think you flatter him by crediting him with moral agency. He doesn't know whether it's Christmas or Easter.
Wait.
It's Christmas or Easter?
Which one??? I need to go buy Easter Eggs or presents immediately.
Technically it is Christmas, judging by the tabloids already running stories about whether you will be able to buy a big enough turkey for the whole family.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Why do you think the democract-supporting journalists would only write about the most controversial republican candidates*
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
To be fair, Larry Elder has been leading in the polls, so it's a bit self reinforcing. Also, Caitlyn Janner is (sadly) news.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
That’s one poll in CA Nick. Could be right but so could the one suggesting the recall up 11pc
Yes, but that was taken 3 weeks ago, and there have been three Keep polls since with increasing margins?
But I don't profess to understand why anyone of any party likes the recall system as it operates there. It seems entirely mad, especially the fact that if it succeeds you get an almost random person taking over, who in turn will almost certainly be subject to recall. Do Californians have infinite money to blow on this sort of thing?
I agree it’s nuts. Newsom has brought this upon himself though with his behaviour.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Why do you think the democract-supporting journalists would only write about the most controversial republican candidates*
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
To be fair, Larry Elder has been leading in the polls, so it's a bit self reinforcing. Also, Caitlyn Janner is (sadly) news.
I’m in a deep blue part of OC
I’ve seen 2 recall posters & 1 elder poster. Plus in the red zone north of me saw a large recall/elder combo opposite the turn to the 73.
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
Areas of Taliban control in Afghanistan were actually just 12 districts out of 387.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
I think Biden is a complete shit. He disagreed with Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan, and saw this as a way of working off an old score.
One thing that has impressed me about Biden in this whole crisis is just how much of a c*nt he could be. I never knew he could be so absolutely amoral in his behaviour. Rather impressive.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Why do you think the democract-supporting journalists would only write about the most controversial republican candidates*
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
To be fair, Larry Elder has been leading in the polls, so it's a bit self reinforcing. Also, Caitlyn Janner is (sadly) news.
I’m in a deep blue part of OC
I’ve seen 2 recall posters & 1 elder poster. Plus in the red zone north of me saw a large recall/elder combo opposite the turn to the 73.
Nothing else visible
In the last week in Brentwood, I've seen a rash of "stop the recall" signs go up.
It'll be very interesting to see what turnout will be like.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
That’s one poll in CA Nick. Could be right but so could the one suggesting the recall up 11pc
Yes, but that was taken 3 weeks ago, and there have been three Keep polls since with increasing margins?
But I don't profess to understand why anyone of any party likes the recall system as it operates there. It seems entirely mad, especially the fact that if it succeeds you get an almost random person taking over, who in turn will almost certainly be subject to recall. Do Californians have infinite money to blow on this sort of thing?
To be fair the recall system doesn't operate like that there though.
This is only the second recall election for Governor in the history of California. The first was the very well deserved recall of Gray Davis and he wasn't replaced then by anyone random, the Governator won just a shade under 50% of the vote and actually won more votes than the votes against recalling Davis despite how many candidates were then on the ballot.
So if its a stupid mess this time, it will be an unprecedented stupid mess.
"California parole commissioners recommended on Friday that Sirhan B. Sirhan should be freed on parole after spending more than 50 years in prison for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign for president."
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Yes, but Bush Snr and Carter had dramatically higher approval ratings and we're re-elected. If you chart approval rating at 220 days against vote share at four years, you'll see basically zero correlation.
(And this is, of course, irrelevant as Biden will not be the Democratic candidate in three years time.)
"California parole commissioners recommended on Friday that Sirhan B. Sirhan should be freed on parole after spending more than 50 years in prison for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign for president."
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
CBS saying death toll "at least 170".
BBC and SKY saying only 95.
BBC saying 170
Interviewing relatives coming out of the morgue saying their relatives have bullet wounds and no signs of injury from explosion.
"California parole commissioners recommended on Friday that Sirhan B. Sirhan should be freed on parole after spending more than 50 years in prison for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign for president."
NYTimes
Why did it make your jaw drop?
That the guy is still around. Still alive. Still doing his term. Seems lifetimes ago.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Yes, but Bush Snr and Carter had dramatically higher approval ratings and we're re-elected. If you chart approval rating at 220 days against vote share at four years, you'll see basically zero correlation.
(And this is, of course, irrelevant as Biden will not be the Democratic candidate in three years time.)
Nixon was on 62%, he got 61% in 1972. Obama was on 54%, not far off the 51% he got in 2012.
Ike and LBJ were also re elected by landslides in 1956 and 1964 and had approval ratings over 70% at this stage.
Bush's 57% was a bit above the 50.7% he got in 2004 but he was still re elected.
Certainly to be sure of re election you do not want to under 50% at this stage. The only President under 50% at this stage who managed to be re elected was Bill Clinton and Biden is no Bill Clinton. Plus Clinton still got only 49% in 1996 and was helped by Perot splitting the opposition vote.
Harris has an even lower approval rating than Biden does
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Why do you think the democract-supporting journalists would only write about the most controversial republican candidates*
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
To be fair, Larry Elder has been leading in the polls, so it's a bit self reinforcing. Also, Caitlyn Janner is (sadly) news.
I’m in a deep blue part of OC
I’ve seen 2 recall posters & 1 elder poster. Plus in the red zone north of me saw a large recall/elder combo opposite the turn to the 73.
Nothing else visible
In the last week in Brentwood, I've seen a rash of "stop the recall" signs go up.
It'll be very interesting to see what turnout will be like.
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
CBS saying death toll "at least 170".
BBC and SKY saying only 95.
BBC saying 170
Interviewing relatives coming out of the morgue saying their relatives have bullet wounds and no signs of injury from explosion.
Comments
Outside of cities schooling for girls in Afghanistan was pretty thin on the ground.
Also, as the article points out, by 2017 the Taliban controlled or contested 40% of Afghanistan. The notion that they were gone until the Biden withdrawl or even the Trump surrender document is absolutely farcical.
If tou look at US casualties in Afghansitan over the years there is a really obvious change around 2013.
The bioweapon thesis was always the least likely. Tho that does not - note - rule out the possibility that the Chinese Military was interested in Wuhan's research into coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapon in the future. We know they were. The evidence is public
It was always extremely unlikely the Chinese would release a viral bioweapon now (why? As China rises anyway?), especially without having a vaccine ready to go. Bonkers.
We will probably never know, China has hidden the evidence and it is too late to prove anything. For me the other evidence, the circumstantial evidence, points comprehensively to lab leak. Others will differ. Fair enough
However there really should be an investigation into those scientists and journalists who conspired, from the start, to unjustly suppress the lab leak hypothesis - and they did conspire. People like Daszak, etc. That was so unprofessional as to border on criminal.
I think it's a bit too late to worry about being damaged in the old noggin department ...
(*) Excepting the M11 and A14
The sensible option in such circumstances is to be agnostic about it rather than veering heavily to one theory or another.
It is Biden who through his withdrawal handed the country back on a plate to the Taliban
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57933979
But enough. I am wearied. I want wine. Later
Could we not gift him Chequers as a thank you for winning the war on Covid?
Mind you, I do love to hunt a fox where it is safe and legal to do so (County Galway). Probably very wrong of me.
edit and no longer a tory, which probably weakens my point a bit.
further edit: and it's a stretch to call hunting in Galway safe. Dem walls...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReD-oukZmO4
OK
Been a while since British women's tennis has had such depth.
The HRW article I had posted that you seemed to be disputing only had them in 40% of the country.
Bit of a tiny element of a small exaggeration.
https://morningconsult.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-polling/
It is Biden who allowed them back in control of the whole country
Get a poll from 2 years ago prior to the election and see what the figures are.
They had safe harbour and territory because Bush and Blair didn't finish the job two decades ago. The rest is details.
Finally neoconservatism and interventionism is making a comeback in the GOP base
https://morningconsult.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-polling/
Get a poll from before the election and see what percentage of Republicans wanted to "put America first and bring home the troops".
If Trump had won the election then GOP voters would be backing the withdrawal and you'd see Democrat criticism instead.
The unspoken truth right now is that a bit of inflation wouldn't be a bad thing for the West to bring our debts down to size. Will also help to rebalance house prices and others too without negative equity.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
The GOP is finally moving back into a neocon direction and Trump will have to become more neocon to win the primary election in 2024.
Remember the GOP is the party of Bush as much as Trump
It's Christmas or Easter?
Which one??? I need to go buy Easter Eggs or presents immediately.
But it has no bearing on whether Biden did all this to "work off an old score" which seems to me a completely unsubstantiated and frankly ridiculous comment.
Just because I like Boris and agree with him most of the time is no bad thing. Its not a sin not to hate the PM you know.
But, hey, if you can show me the 100+ posts I wrote about the Maricopa audit, I’ll take it back. Otherwise, you might just be talking out of your arse….
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
We were having a discussion about the US and Joe Biden, Boris wasn't even in the conversation.
That's just odd. I think you might have a crush on me.
Both of course saw their parties trounced in their first midterms, the Democrats are also below 50% in every poll
I don't buy the whole 'this is his Carter moment'.
Not passing the $50 trillion social welfare bill might have far more bearing on mid terms.
When does the Christmas Movie channel start up?
https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx
And I believe that the likeliest date for the Larry Elder recall election (for there would undoubtedly be one if he were to win), would be February 22nd.
But I don't profess to understand why anyone of any party likes the recall system as it operates there. It seems entirely mad, especially the fact that if it succeeds you get an almost random person taking over, who in turn will almost certainly be subject to recall. Do Californians have infinite money to blow on this sort of thing?
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
Which is not always a bad thing in a president, see JFK, FDR, Andrew Jackson. All pretty ruthless and cold, in their own way. It might even be a necessary attribute. You need to make tough decisions, that will kill people, and walk away emotionally unscathed. That takes a deal of c*untishness
The trouble with Biden is that he is an INEPT OLD heartless c*nt. He doesn't even do it very well. That's bad
I’ve seen 2 recall posters & 1 elder poster. Plus in the red zone north of me saw a large recall/elder combo opposite the turn to the 73.
Nothing else visible
Truman 75%
Ike 74%
JFK 76%
LBJ 74%
Nixon 62%
Ford 39%
Carter 60%
Reagan 60%
Bush Snr 69%
Clinton 44%
Bush Jnr 57%
Obama 54%
Trump 36%
Biden 49%
So only Ford, Clinton and Trump had a lower rating than Biden at this stage and 2/3 of them were not re elected
https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx
It'll be very interesting to see what turnout will be like.
This is only the second recall election for Governor in the history of California. The first was the very well deserved recall of Gray Davis and he wasn't replaced then by anyone random, the Governator won just a shade under 50% of the vote and actually won more votes than the votes against recalling Davis despite how many candidates were then on the ballot.
So if its a stupid mess this time, it will be an unprecedented stupid mess.
"California parole commissioners recommended on Friday that Sirhan B. Sirhan should be freed on parole after spending more than 50 years in prison for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign for president."
NYTimes
(And this is, of course, irrelevant as Biden will not be the Democratic candidate in three years time.)
Ike and LBJ were also re elected by landslides in 1956 and 1964 and had approval ratings over 70% at this stage.
Bush's 57% was a bit above the 50.7% he got in 2004 but he was still re elected.
Certainly to be sure of re election you do not want to under 50% at this stage. The only President under 50% at this stage who managed to be re elected was Bill Clinton and Biden is no Bill Clinton. Plus Clinton still got only 49% in 1996 and was helped by Perot splitting the opposition vote.
Harris has an even lower approval rating than Biden does