Given what everybody is talking about it we probably need a thread on this – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
What if the person named was William and there was evidence to back it up?MalcolmDunn said:I dont think Meghans allegations of racism ring true at all. The fact that she refused to name the person concerned is despicable
Surely it would be better to keep the name quiet rather than light the fuse...0 -
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all2 -
"DOMINIQUE SAMUELS: This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9340209/DOMINIQUE-SAMUELS-clash-Royals-culture-NOT-colour.html0 -
It was never going to be desirable either, since the US has nothing even close to 50% of the world's population.rcs1000 said:
Of course, most of the world's industrial capacity had been destroyed by the Second World War, so it was always going to be hard to stay at that level.Andy_JS said:
it probably was in the early 1950s.gealbhan said:
Was it really 50% of global?Leon said:Gallowgate said:
Get a grip man.Leon said:
The America of the Moon Landings, that's the America I miss. That, for me, was Peak America. Deeply flawed - as you say - still riven with racial divide - but wow, they put a man on the moon: more than 50 fucking years ago. 50 years ago!!! Mobile phones were science fiction. Thruppeny bits were a thing. We all ate cheese in triangles. A man on the fucking moon!??!!Foxy said:
Would that be the America of Jim Crow and the KKK? Of Operation Condor? Of Mayor Daley and Tammany Hall?Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
I lived in America for five formative years. The one thing about America to be certain of is that it contains the worst of mankind as well as the best, incredible beauty as well as trashy ugliness, of high ideas and the lowest common denominator. It has always been both a shining city on the hill, and home of some of the darkest deeds.
In that, nothing has changed. Indeed I would argue that pretty much all countries have their dark side as well as positive ones. It is just that in America we see more of it.
That's the America that, sadly, seems to have departed this world. Superbly optimistic, absolutely self confident - NOT self hating - truly generous in spirit, if ugly in its power, sometimes. An America ascendant that wanted to help the world, and did so.
Gone gone gone.
That same America has revolutionised personal transport with Tesla as they did with Ford. That same America has revolutionised private space travel with SpaceX and other private space companies.
Not everything is seen through the guise of "woke" or "anti-woke".
America's economy as a share of global GDP
https://twitter.com/Scacciavillani/status/1332339682886242304?s=20
50% to 14%
A monumental shift. Yes, America has brilliant companies and world-class innovation. But the decline is brisk
The rest of the world not being as impoverished is a good thing.1 -
Do you think the Queen has no feelings? Of course she does but unlike Madame Hollywood, who actually was only ever a C list actress anyway and only got to be A+ list through joining the royal family, Her Majesty puts public service rather than her own narcissism as the priorityRochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all2 -
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all1 -
Good news for HYUFD - the BBC have released an instructional video so that members of the fairer sex need not descend into depravity like the Duchess of Success did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w4 -
I believe she was in Suits? Never seen it.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
"Taken me in"...?0 -
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.3
-
My money’s on Camilla.eek said:
What if the person named was William and there was evidence to back it up?MalcolmDunn said:I dont think Meghans allegations of racism ring true at all. The fact that she refused to name the person concerned is despicable
Surely it would be better to keep the name quiet rather than light the fuse...2 -
Wow.williamglenn said:
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest peoplePhilip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/21/china-overtakes-us-in-rankings-of-worlds-richest-people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.0 -
Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........HYUFD said:
I doubt it will make the slightest difference.swing_voter said:Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.
In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.
In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now1 -
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all1 -
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.DougSeal said:Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
1 -
Radio Five Live: a GP in Leicester managed to personally convince 120 patients to have the jab.0
-
Did anyone check to see if he was blinking in morse code during the interview?Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all1 -
The idea there aren't confident women within the royals is a hoot. Anne and the Queen herself are both very confident indeed.
Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are1 -
At that’s exactly the problemDougSeal said:
My money’s on Camilla.eek said:
What if the person named was William and there was evidence to back it up?MalcolmDunn said:I dont think Meghans allegations of racism ring true at all. The fact that she refused to name the person concerned is despicable
Surely it would be better to keep the name quiet rather than light the fuse...
I’m not naming the accused she has tainted all of them with suspicion and left them unable to respond. In what world is that just?2 -
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic marketFoxy said:
Wow.williamglenn said:
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest peoplePhilip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/21/china-overtakes-us-in-rankings-of-worlds-richest-people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.0 -
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...1 -
It's important to understand the plight of titled millionaires, after all.MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...8 -
I think more people, from immigration, has been a strength of the US. It has contributed to the growth of the economy, creating more opportunities for innovation. It has kept the country young. It has provided a constant supply of people who believed in the country so much they were willing to take the risk of leaving family and familiarity behind.Philip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
America's strength isn't from having more people. The USSR had a bigger population than the USA.
America's strength is from challenging itself internally (which wokism is doing) and developing technological progress (Silicon Valley, SpaceX etc) and being better off per capita (which it is, 4-fold over the Chinese).
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).0 -
O/t (and thank the Lord for that) many people here have expressed an interest in the implications of long Covid. This is a good piece in the Atlantic which offers some hope for treatment: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/unlocking-the-mysteries-of-long-covid/618076/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210308&silverid-ref=Njk5MTc2ODk0NTgwS02
-
Germans are concerned China is about to decontent their economyCharles said:
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic marketFoxy said:
Wow.williamglenn said:
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest peoplePhilip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/21/china-overtakes-us-in-rankings-of-worlds-richest-people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article227867925/Chinas-gefaehrlicher-Autarkie-Plan-Deutschlands-Abhaengigkeit-wird-zur-Falle.html1 -
I was thinking more about how unequal America is that 100 million Chinese are wealthier than 250 million Americans.Charles said:
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic marketFoxy said:
Wow.williamglenn said:
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest peoplePhilip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/21/china-overtakes-us-in-rankings-of-worlds-richest-people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.1 -
We (mankind) all just gotta keep breeding breeding. Immigration is zero sum from a growth perspective. Can squeeze plenty out of juice out of this old planet once we start using energy sustainably and making food scientifically.LostPassword said:
I think more people, from immigration, has been a strength of the US. It's contributed to the growth of the economy, creating more opportunities for innovation. It's kept the country young. Its provided a constant supply of people who believed in the country so much they were willing to take the risk of leaving family and familiarity behind.Philip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
America's strength isn't from having more people. The USSR had a bigger population than the USA.
America's strength is from challenging itself internally (which wokism is doing) and developing technological progress (Silicon Valley, SpaceX etc) and being better off per capita (which it is, 4-fold over the Chinese).
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).
And after that the solar system is a big old place with untold natural resources. No reason we shouldn’t be aiming for a trillion souls in the solar system by the end of say the 22nd century if we manage to slow the death rate to a near standstill.0 -
The best thing the Royal Family can do is say nothing and treat them with the contempt which they richly deserve.4
-
"Piers Morgan storms off GMB during furious row with weatherman Alex Beresford over Meghan Markle"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9341281/Piers-Morgan-storms-GMB-furious-row-weatherman-Alex-Beresford-Meghan-Markle.html0 -
MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Maybe this is a modern day fable - Harry is Rapunzel, rescued from a life of entrapment and deprivation by a warrior princess from afar:
Rapunzel!
Rapunzel!
Let down your heirs
Or something.2 -
Never wrestle with pigs.squareroot2 said:The best thing the Royal Family can do is say nothing and treat them with the contempt which they richly deserve.
1 -
Surely it more shows how unequal China is?Foxy said:
I was thinking more about how unequal America is that 100 million Chinese are wealthier than 250 million Americans.Charles said:
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic marketFoxy said:
Wow.williamglenn said:
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest peoplePhilip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/21/china-overtakes-us-in-rankings-of-worlds-richest-people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.0 -
It is all made up bollox.Leon said:
If they do counter-brief (probably unwise) then they need something better than the rather lame stories about bullying. It's bad if these stories are true, but it's trivial compared to the allegations Harry and Meg are making.kle4 said:
They probably will, officially, as it is the right move, but there's clearly a war going on, and briefings come from somewhere and presumably still would, since why let the opponent launch unanswered salvoes? (reasoning both sides no doubt employ)Gallowgate said:
The best response would be to say nothing other than to express good-will towards them and wish them every happiness in the future.Luckyguy1983 said:I wonder if anyone will respond with a counter-interview. I suppose the right thing to do is hope it dies down, which I think it will. It's pretty thin gruel. If there were to be one it would be William and Kate.
Some of them are quite specific and quite shocking.
eg Did the Royal Household really confiscate Meghan's passport and driving licence?! I find it very hard to believe. Why would they do that? That's basically kidnapping. However it is the kind of detailed allegation that probably does require explicit refutation. Which is why, I fear, the Royals can't just remain loftily silent, even tho that would be preferable, in many ways0 -
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all3 -
What fun our Euro chums will be having!0
-
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.malcolmg said:
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all0 -
No, but her script writers/adviers will have told her to include it as an easy way to push the buttons of the urban millenial and Gen-Z demographic. Just as Diana accused unnamed courtiers of sexism a quarter of a century ago. They are both good actresses, and, like all such, totally cynical and manipulative.MalcolmDunn said:I dont think Meghans allegations of racism ring true at all. The fact that she refused to name the person concerned is despicable
One day, I imagine, when she gets sick of Harry, she'll turn on all this on him, and then he'll have cause to remember President Trump's words of (for once) wisdom ...1 -
Daily Mirror: "worst royal crisis for 85 years". The whole death of Diana period just pass them by?
Of course the real issue in the interview which is being conveniently glossed over is the role of the tabloid press, which these days basically incorporates what was once called "the serious press" as well.
Because a lot of the criticisms of the Royal Family and how it operates, basically stems from the need to maintain distance from the press and steer clear of public controversy. And even now i suspect most people in the UK are just shrugging their shoulders and want the whole thing to move on - but it is the press that are out for blood and demanding that the Palace issue statements - knowing perfectly well that there isn't really much they can say that will change much. Even if they attempt to refute/explain some accusations, it will just leave questions following about anything they don't address.
It is just a fact of life that you can't choose your (royal) family, you can't run diversity drives, sack individuals that step out of line or make mistakes etc etc. And most people know that.
And on the supposed "racism" issue - i'll bet you can find a hundred stories in the press from a few years ago asking questions about how "the country" would react to a black member of the royal family. All sh*t stirring as usual.
0 -
I wonder how many people wondered what colour hair the baby would have. Or asked Diana that question when she was pregnant with Harry?1
-
I saw a clip where Oprah expressed shock about the racism.stuff.. I mean this faux shock.. as if it hadn't been mentioned before the recordings whst was going to be said and how it woukd be said . Treat Meghan and Harry like Mrs Simpson and Edward V111 refuse to receive them again.. bar for funerals.1
-
Well done Malc! On the nail as usualmalcolmg said:
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all0 -
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.NerysHughes said:
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.malcolmg said:
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
1 -
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.6 -
I think it is almost certain that somebody asked if a black baby could have ginger hair.OldKingCole said:I wonder how many people wondered what colour hair the baby would have. Or asked Diana that question when she was pregnant with Harry?
0 -
Why ask? Plenty of photos of James Hewitt out there.OldKingCole said:I wonder how many people wondered what colour hair the baby would have. Or asked Diana that question when she was pregnant with Harry?
1 -
If Harry had any class he would have delayed the release of the interview until his Grandfather was out of hospital.alex_ said:
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.NerysHughes said:
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.malcolmg said:
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all0 -
If Harry had any class, he wouldn't have done the interview.NerysHughes said:
If Harry had any class he would have delayed the release of the interview until his Grandfather was out of hospital.alex_ said:
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.NerysHughes said:
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.malcolmg said:
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all2 -
And that, I think, is the nub of the problem.HYUFD said:
Do you think the Queen has no feelings? Of course she does but unlike Madame Hollywood, who actually was only ever a C list actress anyway and only got to be A+ list through joining the royal family, Her Majesty puts public service rather than her own narcissism as the priorityRochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
The Royals - and any incomers - lead extraordinary managed lives, surrounded by courtiers whose attitudes are not entirely dissimilar to those of Monsieur HYUFD.
For most of them, clearly, that will mean being encased in the comfortable cotton wool of slavish admiration.
Imagine being Megan and having your life managed 24 hours a day by those who are consumed by so much bile.
Neither side will understand the other.0 -
Generally speaking I am in favour of more consciousness in the Universe rather than less.moonshine said:
We (mankind) all just gotta keep breeding breeding. Immigration is zero sum from a growth perspective. Can squeeze plenty out of juice out of this old planet once we start using energy sustainably and making food scientifically.LostPassword said:
I think more people, from immigration, has been a strength of the US. It's contributed to the growth of the economy, creating more opportunities for innovation. It's kept the country young. Its provided a constant supply of people who believed in the country so much they were willing to take the risk of leaving family and familiarity behind.Philip_Thompson said:
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.Leon said:
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?Philip_Thompson said:
There was an attempted coup that failed.Leon said:
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votesPhilip_Thompson said:
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.Leon said:
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". SorryPhilip_Thompson said:
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.HYUFD said:
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.Leon said:
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3HYUFD said:
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.Leon said:
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.HYUFD said:
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of itLeon said:
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasmHYUFD said:The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1368959692475613186?s=20
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/20/google-sacks-second-ethical-ai-researcher-amid-censorship-storm/
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
America's strength isn't from having more people. The USSR had a bigger population than the USA.
America's strength is from challenging itself internally (which wokism is doing) and developing technological progress (Silicon Valley, SpaceX etc) and being better off per capita (which it is, 4-fold over the Chinese).
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).
And after that the solar system is a big old place with untold natural resources. No reason we shouldn’t be aiming for a trillion souls in the solar system by the end of say the 22nd century if we manage to slow the death rate to a near standstill.0 -
This is the bit of the Meghan hate that I really don't get. She just wanted to be a princess with all the trappings, so she seduced poor misguided Harry. Then persuaded him to give all that up, so that she doesn't get any of the royal trappings, just gets Harry and some money. But she had plenty of money already, so really she just gets Harry. So she either screwed up her schemes big time or... all she ever really wanted was Harry.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.5 -
I think she probably at least in part thought that she could "change" the royal family, or at least her preconceived perception of what it was. There were huge numbers of articles beforehand suggesting that if that was her belief then it was misguided, because much of what the Royal Family is, is controlled by its unique status in the country, and definitely isn't a good place to introduce unplanned disruptive change. Where it is perceived that changes are needed they are carefully planned and choregraphed over years, not over weeks and days. And she was wrong. Maybe you are right - love was blind. But the outcome was not unpredictable and was widely predicted.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
It's no good saying that the Royal Family had to "adapt" to accommodate her. She had to at least go into it with her eyes open and be prepared to meet them half way.
2 -
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.1 -
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).Sean_F said:
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.DougSeal said:Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.1 -
If I may divert attention from Meghan for a second...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190824282624001
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/13691909734445916181 -
I would be quite happy for the entire Royal Family to retreat to Santa Barbara on money given to them by their respective mothers.
That might of course be a problem for Andrew if ever a federal warrant was issued.0 -
We don't have anti ginger racism on PB4
-
At the wedding, someone was holding a placard that read "I married a ginger too!"MikeSmithson said:We don't have anti ginger racism on PB
1 -
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.1 -
I should hope not, given the hair colour my wife had when I met her, and which two of my children and two of my grandchildren have.MikeSmithson said:We don't have anti ginger racism on PB
0 -
Paul Waugh clearly doesn't understand Laffer curves. Of course at some points raising rates increases tax - 0% to 1% for example will do so. The Laffer argument is that you reach a point when further increases become counter-productive. Most often upper-rate income tax (which is quite high) is used as an example. It could be the case that CT was at or near the viable maximum, but I suspect not. Also there has been clear economic change, and there's every reason to believe that further economic change is ahead of us.rottenborough said:If I may divert attention from Meghan for a second...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190824282624001
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/13691909734445916181 -
Can't they do it in private?RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.0 -
Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).Sean_F said:
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.DougSeal said:Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
"The Queen is dead, long live the king!"0 -
That assumes that the pressures in the Royal Family are caused by the Royal Family and/or controllable by them.Philip_Thompson said:
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.0 -
With the current media, what lessons? Hide away more?Philip_Thompson said:
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.1 -
We often say on here when discussing "when will x leave post" markets that things generally don't change. I think that is even more applicable to the monarchy. The reality is that unless a political party (probably Labour) sticks the abolition of monarchy (possibly with a referendum) in their manifesto - and wins - then nothing will change.rottenborough said:
Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).Sean_F said:
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.DougSeal said:Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
"The Queen is dead, long live the king!"1 -
It's a family built entirely of unearned, in the normal sense of the word, wealth and position. In return for their privelige, their lives are of duty and service to the nation. That's it. That's the deal. That's precisely what Meghan should have known the contract was about when she married into it all.alex_ said:
That assumes that the pressures in the Royal Family are caused by the Royal Family and/or controllable by them.Philip_Thompson said:
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.3 -
It isn't. And takes like this explains much of why that is.MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...2 -
So the defence of the royal family boils down to:
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?1 -
By the far the most important thing happening today does not involve the Royals. I know, heresy to say it.
Biden will probably sign his massive 'new deal' package. $1.9 trillion!!
A brilliant move that will avoid a slump or a guaranteed return to 1960s inflation? We will shortly see.
0 -
I think Meghan had more to prove because she was an American, and might not always have been given the benefit of the doubt as a result. We have previous experience with a high-profile American socialite marrying a royal, and it didn't end well.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
That meant she got a rough ride in the press at times, that wasn't always fair, and she assumes that must be down to racism. Because in the States it probably would be.
It's a far easier answer than the more complex one of sensitivities related to history and self-reflection that she might otherwise have had to do.0 -
I think you are. And stop swearing.MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.3 -
One thing that came across to me last night was how important the platform to speak and titles were to her, but how little she liked the hierarchy in the royal family and the constraints placed upon that speech.Pulpstar said:
It's a family built entirely of unearned, in the normal sense of the word, wealth and position. In return for their privelige, their lives are of duty and service to the nation. That's it. That's the deal. That's precisely what Meghan should have known the contract was about when she married into it all.alex_ said:
That assumes that the pressures in the Royal Family are caused by the Royal Family and/or controllable by them.Philip_Thompson said:
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
So she didn't accept the deal and, ultimately, that's why she left.0 -
I think you mean McFaden doesn't understand. Waugh was merely quoting the shadow minister.Omnium said:
Paul Waugh clearly doesn't understand Laffer curves. Of course at some points raising rates increases tax - 0% to 1% for example will do so. The Laffer argument is that you reach a point when further increases become counter-productive. Most often upper-rate income tax (which is quite high) is used as an example. It could be the case that CT was at or near the viable maximum, but I suspect not. Also there has been clear economic change, and there's every reason to believe that further economic change is ahead of us.rottenborough said:If I may divert attention from Meghan for a second...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190824282624001
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/13691909734445916180 -
I think it's more that the pressures come with the position. Being royal brings immense privilege, but privilege has a price attached to it.kamski said:So the defence of the royal family boils down to:
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?0 -
This is a much more complex story than either Diana's or Wallis Simpson's, and there's arguably endless moral shades of grey in it, as well as more political and social issues raised. From a moral point of view, there's a good argument that the Palace, Press and Meghan all have responsibility, and rather than only the transatlantic culture-clash issues of 1936, or the press, intrusion and modernity/traditionalism issues of 1997, there's questions of race, hollywood, social media, and a trillion others.
The sheer potential size and parameters of the story will concern the royals, and they'll have to come up with some sort of response fairly quickly.1 -
Calm down dear!MarqueeMark said:
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.RochdalePioneers said:
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?MarqueeMark said:
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.RochdalePioneers said:
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Pioneers, pish.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.2 -
Charming.Sean_F said:
Never wrestle with pigs.squareroot2 said:The best thing the Royal Family can do is say nothing and treat them with the contempt which they richly deserve.
0 -
Be fair. At least he took a principled decision never to share details of that discussion about Archie's skin tone.squareroot2 said:
If Harry had any class, he wouldn't have done the interview.NerysHughes said:
If Harry had any class he would have delayed the release of the interview until his Grandfather was out of hospital.alex_ said:
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.NerysHughes said:
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.malcolmg said:
He just reminds me of a divvy.Foxy said:
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.Stocky said:
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.RochdalePioneers said:
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.HYUFD said:
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.RochdalePioneers said:
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.MattW said:
The monarch is a woman...RochdalePioneers said:Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all0 -
Attributed to Shaw. "Never wrestle with pigs. You both end up covered in mud, but the pig enjoys it." i.e. don't get involved in slanging matches.kinabalu said:
Charming.Sean_F said:
Never wrestle with pigs.squareroot2 said:The best thing the Royal Family can do is say nothing and treat them with the contempt which they richly deserve.
1 -
I see we are now pretending to "think" about it. Sense the "pigs" comment was the authentic one in your case.Sean_F said:
I think it's more that the pressures come with the position. Being royal brings immense privilege, but privilege has a price attached to it.kamski said:So the defence of the royal family boils down to:
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?0 -
And as all PB Tories know Labour economic policy ends in catastrophe and the loss of political power for a generation.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Except that was always a possibility. It's been predicted for years that there may well be a reevaluation of things when the Queen dies. Long term there are potentials but this doesnt seem particularly relevant to it, as the arguments for against are unchanged, so since no one seems to expect the debate to be opened sooner, nothing has really changed.swing_voter said:
Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........HYUFD said:
I doubt it will make the slightest difference.swing_voter said:Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.
In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.
In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now
I cannot wait for someone to link it to Barbados when they become a republic, despite them planning to do it for ages.0 -
Fergie was outspoken too. And Zara Phillips isn't quiet either.Pulpstar said:The idea there aren't confident women within the royals is a hoot. Anne and the Queen herself are both very confident indeed.
Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are
If you look at what Meghan says, regardless of the situation or the issue, she's always the victim.0 -
But anyway. Enough. The dimwittery and "urbane" bigotry on here is making my fingers tremble.
BREAK!
0 -
It is treason to imagine or speak of the death of the sovereign.kle4 said:
Except that was always a possibility. It's been predicted for years that there may well be a reevaluation of things when the Queen dies. Long term there are potentials but this doesnt seem particularly relevant to it, as the arguments for against are unchanged, so since no one seems to expect the debate to be opened sooner, nothing has really changed.swing_voter said:
Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........HYUFD said:
I doubt it will make the slightest difference.swing_voter said:Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.
In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.
In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now
I cannot wait for someone to link it to Barbados when they become a republic, despite them planning to do it for ages.
The correct phrase to use is "when there is a change in monarch".0 -
And Obama's?kinabalu said:
I see we are now pretending to "think" about it. Sense the "pigs" comment was the authentic one in your case.Sean_F said:
I think it's more that the pressures come with the position. Being royal brings immense privilege, but privilege has a price attached to it.kamski said:So the defence of the royal family boils down to:
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?0 -
I read it as Waugh quoting and endorsing - however I may, as you suggest, be wrong.rottenborough said:
I think you mean McFaden doesn't understand. Waugh was merely quoting the shadow minister.Omnium said:
Paul Waugh clearly doesn't understand Laffer curves. Of course at some points raising rates increases tax - 0% to 1% for example will do so. The Laffer argument is that you reach a point when further increases become counter-productive. Most often upper-rate income tax (which is quite high) is used as an example. It could be the case that CT was at or near the viable maximum, but I suspect not. Also there has been clear economic change, and there's every reason to believe that further economic change is ahead of us.rottenborough said:If I may divert attention from Meghan for a second...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190824282624001
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190973444591618
The argument has been doing the rounds a bit anyway and is false, although the Chancellor's 6% hike is certainly going to be an interesting test of where we are on the CT curve.
(I was also in part responding as the subject contains no blood-colour references)0 -
Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.CarlottaVance said:4 -
Please don't try and insinuate when you sense an opportunity to do so.kinabalu said:
I see we are now pretending to "think" about it. Sense the "pigs" comment was the authentic one in your case.Sean_F said:
I think it's more that the pressures come with the position. Being royal brings immense privilege, but privilege has a price attached to it.kamski said:So the defence of the royal family boils down to:
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?
You don't like people doing it to you.3 -
When people are flinging mud, it's best to ignore them. That's the implication of Shaw's quote.tlg86 said:
And Obama's?kinabalu said:
I see we are now pretending to "think" about it. Sense the "pigs" comment was the authentic one in your case.Sean_F said:
I think it's more that the pressures come with the position. Being royal brings immense privilege, but privilege has a price attached to it.kamski said:So the defence of the royal family boils down to:
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?1 -
Such is the febrile nature of debate atm and what with the thread header I thought this was referring to Kate Cambridge.CarlottaVance said:0 -
It does actually look a bit like her.TOPPING said:
Such is the febrile nature of debate atm and what with the thread header I thought this was referring to Kate Cambridge.CarlottaVance said:0 -
I am an assiduous follower of PB, but unfortunately have only come out of the woodwork on a couple of occasions. I would like to thank, however, who recommended the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman which I bought and devoured within a weekend. I came away with a feeling that, despite the horrendous sacrifices made by millions during the war, most of the main protagonists were related and that the whole affair was big family squabble.
The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).
0 -
He will be, although there is a period for reflection before the coronation.rottenborough said:
Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).Sean_F said:
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.DougSeal said:Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
"The Queen is dead, long live the king!"
I'm not saying it's at all likely, though. Just saying calling it a day at that point would be sensible.0 -
Now that I look at it, it looks a bit more like Stevie out of Schitt's Creek.WhisperingOracle said:
It does actually look a bit like her.TOPPING said:
Such is the febrile nature of debate atm and what with the thread header I thought this was referring to Kate Cambridge.CarlottaVance said:0
This discussion has been closed.