Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The Trump case – latest YouGov US polling – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,693
edited April 2023 in General
imageThe Trump case – latest YouGov US polling – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,031
    Those numbers are much worse for Mr Trump than I would have expected. Only 61% of Republicans disapprove of the filing of charges.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,783
    The Independents numbers aren’t great either - net approval +18.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,444
    Lay Trump
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,460
    Worrying that Americans are so starkly split along party lines.

    Oh, and good luck selecting a jury.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,444
    FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.

    I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.
  • Options
    Rob_downunderRob_downunder Posts: 128
    edited April 2023

    FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.

    I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.

    The crux of the issue with the UK (and I say this as someone now living in Australia) is that in vast swathes of the country, there simply aren't enough people in well paying jobs helping to raise the revenues needed to fund the public services people expect.

    With the exception of London and the S.E (plus other highly educated pockets - Edinburgh, East Cheshire etc) the country is full of low paid, low skilled jobs, and many of these at recipients of 'in work benefits'.

    So it really doesn't matter a great deal if tax rates go up or down that much in this environment.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731
    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,363

    FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.

    I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.

    I used to feel like that and now do everything possible to avoid , legally, giving the Govt any of my money. The amount Govts of all colours have pissed up against the wall over the decades of my life has altered my opinion drastically
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    Lay Trump

    That’s what caused the problem in the first place.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    would that be liberal as in uses the law to lock up political opponents ?
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Not for a judge

  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,130
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Careful, we wouldn't want you bringing polarized American politics over here.....
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Foxy said:

    It's about time some body took on these grooming gangs.
    Indeed

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731


    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    would that be liberal as in uses the law to lock up political opponents ?
    No.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Not for a judge

    Are you saying judges should ignore facts? That’s how we had controversy over that pedestrian being locked up over the death of a cyclist…
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.

    I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.

    Your supporting the wrong party.
  • Options
    Pavarotti? They couldn't have come up with a better name than that?

    Thirteen men have appeared in court charged with more than 50 offences as part of an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bolton.

    They are accused of offences against numerous girls, aged between 14 and 17, from 2016 to 2018 in the Blackrod area of Bolton and the nearby village of Adlington.

    The men, who range in age from 21 to 34, were arrested as part of Operation Pavarotti, a Greater Manchester police investigation into child sexual exploitation following numerous allegations.

    The accused were brought into court in groups of three or four for brief hearings at Bolton magistrates’ court.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bolton-grooming-gang-case-13-men-charged-with-more-than-50-offences-0wv6zlbmv
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
  • Options
    TheKitchenCabinetTheKitchenCabinet Posts: 2,275
    edited April 2023
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    I don't agree with the system in the States at all. Justice should not be politicised and, in the past, wasn't.

    However, I think you need to check up on your History to see why Trump could do this. The filibuster was abolished for SCOTUS appointments after Mitch McConnell retaliated post-Harry Reid abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet positions and federal judges. McConnell warned at the time that is what would happen if Reid's plans went ahead and it exactly happened that way.

  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    One of the GOP strategists did reveal their long term strategy if there's ever a liberal majority on SCOTUS.

    The GOP POTUS would simply expand the court to ensure there was a GOP majority.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,261

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Have you got sources for the 15-20x spending claim?

    And have you got sources for Protasiewicz's decision making process being "Republican bad, Democrat good"?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    The independent numbers are the interesting ones - and don't look very good for Trump.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
  • Options
    On topic, the trial is likely to happen in January 2024 which would coincide with the primaries.

    That may bugger up Trump's plans if he has to be in NYC during the trial.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,460
    edited April 2023
    Mainstream Republicans long before Trump have prioritised appointing or electing "their" judges even at state level. One of their complaints was that Trump was messing this up.

    ETA Older PBers might remember the GOP Senate refusing even to conduct confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court candidate Merrick Garland.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.

    No it's not. It's their normal modus operandi.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Not for a judge

    Are you saying judges should ignore facts? That’s how we had controversy over that pedestrian being locked up over the death of a cyclist…
    No I am saying that a judge should look at the facts of the case before them

    Prejudging a case based on someone’s political affiliation is wrong. It is troubling that you don’t recognise that

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    On topic, the trial is likely to happen in January 2024 which would coincide with the primaries.

    That may bugger up Trump's plans if he has to be in NYC during the trial.

    He'd address them all by video link in an orange jumpsuit saying he's being oppressed by the Dems because he's the candidate that scares them shitless.*

    And the Republicans would lap it up...

    *This is true incidentally, less because he's an electoral threat than because he's a wannabe dictator.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Not for a judge

    Are you saying judges should ignore facts? That’s how we had controversy over that pedestrian being locked up over the death of a cyclist…
    No I am saying that a judge should look at the facts of the case before them

    Prejudging a case based on someone’s political affiliation is wrong. It is troubling that you don’t recognise that

    'Republicans bad' is a fact. So you're saying she should not consider all the facts in front of her...
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    I think a 15-20x spending advantage probably also helped.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    Yep ...

    When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.

    Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.

    But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.

    https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/republicans-rigged-system-pretense-election-used-hostile-take-wisconsins-democracy/

  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,817

    Pavarotti? They couldn't have come up with a better name than that?

    Thirteen men have appeared in court charged with more than 50 offences as part of an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bolton.

    They are accused of offences against numerous girls, aged between 14 and 17, from 2016 to 2018 in the Blackrod area of Bolton and the nearby village of Adlington.

    The men, who range in age from 21 to 34, were arrested as part of Operation Pavarotti, a Greater Manchester police investigation into child sexual exploitation following numerous allegations.

    The accused were brought into court in groups of three or four for brief hearings at Bolton magistrates’ court.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bolton-grooming-gang-case-13-men-charged-with-more-than-50-offences-0wv6zlbmv

    I note all the defendants in this particular case have Anglophone names.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/breaking-ten-men-charged-child-26380337
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    It’s a really dangerous time for American politics at the moment, very much not helped by elected partisan prosecutors and judges.

    Plenty of calls in the last 48 hours for Republicans to start playing the same game, wrt Biden, the Clintons, and their associates - this sort of thing is traditionally what separates major democracies from third-world dictatorships and theocracies.

    The worrying thing is that it’s difficult to see how things get better over there, before they get worse. Potentially a lot worse.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors ...
    Source for that ?
    Your maths doesn't seem to add up.
    There is a large disparity though nowhere close to your claim) between the candidates, but overall it's closer.

    WisPolitics review: Spending in Supreme Court race surpasses $45 million
    https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-review-spending-in-supreme-court-race-nears-45-million
    ...Of that, $$24.4 million has been spent by liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz and the groups backing her. That includes the $2.2 million that the Dem group A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund spent opposing Jennifer Dorow in the four-way primary, a move that insiders saw as a play to help fellow conservative Daniel Kelly advance to the April election.

    Meanwhile, more than $19.2 million has been spent backing Kelly or opposing Protasiewicz since the beginning of the race. That number also includes anti-Dorow ads run in the primary by conservative groups...

    ..The biggest spender on the liberal side beyond Protasiewicz has been A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund. That group has reported nearly $6.2 million in independent expenditures since the race began.

    The biggest spenders on the pro-Kelly side have been Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Issues Mobilization Council at $5.8 million, according to a source tracking media buys, and Fair Courts America, which has filed reports detailing nearly $5.2 million in spending...


  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,758


    Hostage message from the Home Office PR people?
  • Options

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
    This is the problem. Politics has become like two sides of opposing football teams. The other side cannot do right.

    That is fine in a football game, it is a horrendous in politics.

    I am not as fearful as you re the UK becoming like the US - I think we have checks that the US doesn't (especially on appointment of judges). But this tendency to politicise everything is toxic.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.

  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors ...
    Source for that ?
    Your maths doesn't seem to add up.
    There is a large disparity though nowhere close to your claim) between the candidates, but overall it's closer.

    WisPolitics review: Spending in Supreme Court race surpasses $45 million
    https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-review-spending-in-supreme-court-race-nears-45-million
    ...Of that, $$24.4 million has been spent by liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz and the groups backing her. That includes the $2.2 million that the Dem group A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund spent opposing Jennifer Dorow in the four-way primary, a move that insiders saw as a play to help fellow conservative Daniel Kelly advance to the April election.

    Meanwhile, more than $19.2 million has been spent backing Kelly or opposing Protasiewicz since the beginning of the race. That number also includes anti-Dorow ads run in the primary by conservative groups...

    ..The biggest spender on the liberal side beyond Protasiewicz has been A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund. That group has reported nearly $6.2 million in independent expenditures since the race began.

    The biggest spenders on the pro-Kelly side have been Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Issues Mobilization Council at $5.8 million, according to a source tracking media buys, and Fair Courts America, which has filed reports detailing nearly $5.2 million in spending...


    Let me check on that - I had seen different figures but will go back and look.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Not for a judge

    Are you saying judges should ignore facts? That’s how we had controversy over that pedestrian being locked up over the death of a cyclist…
    No I am saying that a judge should look at the facts of the case before them

    Prejudging a case based on someone’s political affiliation is wrong. It is troubling that you don’t recognise that

    'Republicans bad' is a fact. So you're saying she should not consider all the facts in front of her...
    Collective guilt is contrary to the Geneva convention.

    How would you feel if I was to declare that all historians were guilty as charged? As a category they obviously can’t be trusted because they tell stories about the past.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
    Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?

    I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.

    Both would be empty rhetoric.
  • Options

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    Yep ...

    When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.

    Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.

    But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.

    https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/republicans-rigged-system-pretense-election-used-hostile-take-wisconsins-democracy/

    But the point is that it happens in Democrat states as well - both sides are at it, not just one.

    The reason why the Democrats lost so many NY seats was because the NY Supreme Court said the gerrymandering was so extreme by the Democrat supermajority that it threw out their plan and imposed an independent adjudicator that came up with a more balanced split.

    If you want an example of even more extreme Democrat gerrymandering, look at Illinois.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,370

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.

    You do not, of course, know that.

    Not to say it has happened, just that you don't know that it hasn't.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    They're all as bad as each other, when they're manifestly not all as bad as each other, is what allows people like Trump and Johnson to get away with it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,845
    edited April 2023
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.

    If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.

    Good morning PB.
  • Options

    They're all as bad as each other, when they're manifestly not all as bad as each other, is what allows people like Trump and Johnson to get away with it.

    They both engage in the same tactics and for the same reasons. You just excuse the side that fits in with your politics. The same happens the other way.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    Yep ...

    When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.

    Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.

    But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.

    https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/republicans-rigged-system-pretense-election-used-hostile-take-wisconsins-democracy/

    But the point is that it happens in Democrat states as well - both sides are at it, not just one.

    The reason why the Democrats lost so many NY seats was because the NY Supreme Court said the gerrymandering was so extreme by the Democrat supermajority that it threw out their plan and imposed an independent adjudicator that came up with a more balanced split.

    If you want an example of even more extreme Democrat gerrymandering, look at Illinois.

    This Illinois?

    Overall, Illinois does not set off statistical alarms for partisan gerrymandering. Illinois has multiple opportunity-to-elect districts, drawn under the guidance of state law, the Voting Rights Act, and the Constitution.

    https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/IL

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
    Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?

    I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.

    Both would be empty rhetoric.
    I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.

    If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.

    I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    TOPPING said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions, let alone drive the Russians back.

    You do not, of course, know that.

    Not to say it has happened, just that you don't know that it hasn't.

    I am pretty sure that the UK government is not secretly spending a lot more on defence than it says it is. But it is true that I do not know it for an absolute fact.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919
    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.

    If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.

    Good morning PB.
    Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.

    The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors ...
    Source for that ?
    Your maths doesn't seem to add up.
    There is a large disparity though nowhere close to your claim) between the candidates, but overall it's closer.

    WisPolitics review: Spending in Supreme Court race surpasses $45 million
    https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-review-spending-in-supreme-court-race-nears-45-million
    ...Of that, $$24.4 million has been spent by liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz and the groups backing her. That includes the $2.2 million that the Dem group A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund spent opposing Jennifer Dorow in the four-way primary, a move that insiders saw as a play to help fellow conservative Daniel Kelly advance to the April election.

    Meanwhile, more than $19.2 million has been spent backing Kelly or opposing Protasiewicz since the beginning of the race. That number also includes anti-Dorow ads run in the primary by conservative groups...

    ..The biggest spender on the liberal side beyond Protasiewicz has been A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund. That group has reported nearly $6.2 million in independent expenditures since the race began.

    The biggest spenders on the pro-Kelly side have been Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Issues Mobilization Council at $5.8 million, according to a source tracking media buys, and Fair Courts America, which has filed reports detailing nearly $5.2 million in spending...


    Let me check on that - I had seen different figures but will go back and look.
    Seems odd they are including

    Meanwhile, more than $19.2 million has been spent backing Kelly or opposing Protasiewicz since the beginning of the race. That number also includes anti-Dorow ads run in the primary by conservative groups...

    as part of Dorow’s total. Suspect a more granular analysis would have a different result
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,845

    FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.

    I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.

    I'm the same. When my small business finally started making enough for me to start paying a little bit of tax a few years ago I actually felt quite proud of myself lol! I don't mind making a contribution but taxes should be kept as low as possible (especially for the lowest earners) and Corporations should pay their fair share.

    One thing I have to give the coalition is the way they kept raising the thresholds and taking the lowest earners out of tax from 2010 to 2015. Things have slipped in that regard recently.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    It’s a really dangerous time for American politics at the moment, very much not helped by elected partisan prosecutors and judges.

    Plenty of calls in the last 48 hours for Republicans to start playing the same game, wrt Biden, the Clintons, and their associates - this sort of thing is traditionally what separates major democracies from third-world dictatorships and theocracies.

    The worrying thing is that it’s difficult to see how things get better over there, before they get worse. Potentially a lot worse.
    It's one of the ways their constitutional arrangements are stupid. You will inevitably have partisanship in the courts if you have elections for them, unless you state judges must not have, and must never have had, party affiliations. Even that wouldn't be a 100% guarantee. I'm a swing voter and have never been a member of any political party although I did do some volunteering for Plaid as a student, but I have strong political views.

    The snag is, there isn't really another way around it unless judges are appointed independently- but even that isn't really acceptable in a democracy (and there have been enough accusations of political bias in this country anyway).

    However, if the Republicans are angry (and their supporters on here clearly are) maybe they should reflect perhaps it wasn't the smartest idea to put perjured ideologues on the Supreme Court to start with. Or to jerrymander the state legislature of Wisconsin almost as badly as the city of Londonderry was in the 1960s. Or to try and stage a violent coup in a presidential election.

    Sure, we could talk about the mistakes the Democrats have made too. The protests after Clinton's defeat, or Gore's manoeuvres in 2000, both spring to mind without much trouble. They were not wise. They did set American democracy on a dark and unfortunate path which we are seeing the culmination of. But these had been seen before - e.g. in the compromise of 1877, or the States Rights split of 1948 - and did not lead to what's happened now. Nobody forced the Republicans to travel it further.

    I don't see too many good outcomes here for America. Which is bad news for us given its economic and strategic importance (read - vital) for the world.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,216

    Lay Trump

    Then get a payout to keep quiet about it.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
    A couple of things there.

    1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.

    2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),

    3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.

    4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    To a point.

    The reality is that even if Europe increased its spending to the agreed levels (as it should) the US spending on technologically advanced kit is vast. So European countries face a choice between a complementary but not a standalone capability (the route the UK is going) or a more generic but less impactful approach (Germany and France).

    I’m not convinced that the UK approach is “freeloading” but it does assume/require US alignment
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,658
    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.

    If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.

    Good morning PB.
    Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.

    The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
    One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    edited April 2023

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
    A couple of things there.

    1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.

    2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),

    3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.

    4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
    2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.

    3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.

    4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,243
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT - I have no desire to avoid paying tax in the UK. I am a patriotic sort of chap and consider it my duty. I'd feel ashamed of myself if I didn't, and a bit hypocritical. I want Britain to have the revenue and economic strengths to succeed.

    I just wish our taxes were much lower, and the supremely wealthy and big corporates paid their far share, and so I vote accordingly.

    I'm the same. When my small business finally started making enough for me to start paying a little bit of tax a few years ago I actually felt quite proud of myself lol! I don't mind making a contribution but taxes should be kept as low as possible (especially for the lowest earners) and Corporations should pay their fair share.

    One thing I have to give the coalition is the way they kept raising the thresholds and taking the lowest earners out of tax from 2010 to 2015. Things have slipped in that regard recently.
    Indeed. The current administration are happy to punish lower and middle earners and give rewards to the wealthiest.

    It is hardly fair, but what do people expect if they vote for them.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    Lay Trump

    Then get a payout to keep quiet about it.
    I had a student once who said her plan was to marry Donald Trump and then quickly divorce him to get a multimillion pound settlement.

    I pointed out that to do that she would have to sleep with him.

    She thought hard and agreed no money was worth that...
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,243
    Pro_Rata said:

    Pavarotti? They couldn't have come up with a better name than that?

    Thirteen men have appeared in court charged with more than 50 offences as part of an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bolton.

    They are accused of offences against numerous girls, aged between 14 and 17, from 2016 to 2018 in the Blackrod area of Bolton and the nearby village of Adlington.

    The men, who range in age from 21 to 34, were arrested as part of Operation Pavarotti, a Greater Manchester police investigation into child sexual exploitation following numerous allegations.

    The accused were brought into court in groups of three or four for brief hearings at Bolton magistrates’ court.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bolton-grooming-gang-case-13-men-charged-with-more-than-50-offences-0wv6zlbmv

    I note all the defendants in this particular case have Anglophone names.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/breaking-ten-men-charged-child-26380337
    Let's remember there are victims here and not play politics over the race of the perpetrators.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,243

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    Broken clock syndrome. He was absolutely right about that.
  • Options

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    Yep ...

    When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.

    Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.

    But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.

    https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/republicans-rigged-system-pretense-election-used-hostile-take-wisconsins-democracy/

    But the point is that it happens in Democrat states as well - both sides are at it, not just one.

    The reason why the Democrats lost so many NY seats was because the NY Supreme Court said the gerrymandering was so extreme by the Democrat supermajority that it threw out their plan and imposed an independent adjudicator that came up with a more balanced split.

    If you want an example of even more extreme Democrat gerrymandering, look at Illinois.

    This Illinois?

    Overall, Illinois does not set off statistical alarms for partisan gerrymandering. Illinois has multiple opportunity-to-elect districts, drawn under the guidance of state law, the Voting Rights Act, and the Constitution.

    https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/IL

    Yes that one - even the NY Times said it "would be among the most gerrymandered in the country."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/illinois-democrats-gerrymander.html
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731
    edited April 2023

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
    Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?

    I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.

    Both would be empty rhetoric.
    I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.

    If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.

    I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
    I think you're ignoring reality.
    Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.

    You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.

    And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.

    Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory
    ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919
    edited April 2023

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.

    That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.

    Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”

    Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.

    But the actual differences, not a lot.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    To a point.

    The reality is that even if Europe increased its spending to the agreed levels (as it should) the US spending on technologically advanced kit is vast. So European countries face a choice between a complementary but not a standalone capability (the route the UK is going) or a more generic but less impactful approach (Germany and France).

    I’m not convinced that the UK approach is “freeloading” but it does assume/require US alignment
    The Ukraine war is not being driven by hi tech systems but by boring stuff like have we got enough ammunition in stock. All eiuropean countries ran their stocks down in the failed belief that foreign policy would keep Putin on side.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
    A couple of things there.

    1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.

    2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),

    3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.

    4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
    2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.

    3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.

    4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
    It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,370
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.

    If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.

    Good morning PB.
    Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.

    The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
    One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
    In the very funny and no doubt accurate "Wasting Police Time" books, which outline the idiocy of much of modern policing, and the futility of much instruction from "above", the one thing that is recommended to make the police more accountable and responsive to local issues is elected police commissioners who would set locally-derived priorities for the police. That is a good thing.

    It's not their fault that the British electorate couldn't give two hoots about them and turnout is low teens.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
    A couple of things there.

    1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.

    2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),

    3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.

    4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
    2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.

    3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.

    4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
    It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
    And mine was aimed right back at you...although I wouldn't want to disturb your complacency in your admiration of Fascism.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
    Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?

    I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.

    Both would be empty rhetoric.
    I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.

    If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.

    I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
    I think you're ignoring reality.
    Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.

    You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.

    And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.

    Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory
    ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
    Youre now quoting Wisonsin with theoretical ifs and buts. There are 50 states, the Dems won the popular vote in the last 2 elections they can defeat Trump within the political system and dont need the judicial twaddle. They are ultimately only harming themselves.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,079

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    To a point.

    The reality is that even if Europe increased its spending to the agreed levels (as it should) the US spending on technologically advanced kit is vast. So European countries face a choice between a complementary but not a standalone capability (the route the UK is going) or a more generic but less impactful approach (Germany and France).

    I’m not convinced that the UK approach is “freeloading” but it does assume/require US alignment
    The Ukraine war is not being driven by hi tech systems but by boring stuff like have we got enough ammunition in stock. All eiuropean countries ran their stocks down in the failed belief that foreign policy would keep Putin on side.
    Sure - governments in all countries forgot the importance of resilience, including inventory management. They focused on cost not the value of readiness.

    But that wasn’t Trump’s point - he was focused on aggregate spending and ammunition stocks don’t move the dial
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731
    edited April 2023

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    Yep ...

    When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.

    Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.

    But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.

    https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/republicans-rigged-system-pretense-election-used-hostile-take-wisconsins-democracy/

    But the point is that it happens in Democrat states as well - both sides are at it, not just one.

    The reason why the Democrats lost so many NY seats was because the NY Supreme Court said the gerrymandering was so extreme by the Democrat supermajority that it threw out their plan and imposed an independent adjudicator that came up with a more balanced split.

    If you want an example of even more extreme Democrat gerrymandering, look at Illinois.

    This Illinois?

    Overall, Illinois does not set off statistical alarms for partisan gerrymandering. Illinois has multiple opportunity-to-elect districts, drawn under the guidance of state law, the Voting Rights Act, and the Constitution.

    https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/IL

    Yes that one - even the NY Times said it "would be among the most gerrymandered in the country."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/illinois-democrats-gerrymander.html
    The 2020 result in Illinois was 57 - 40 for Biden over Trump.
    Any comparison with Wisconsin is more than a stretch.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,658
    TOPPING said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    And yet Trump put two of these judges onto the SCOTUS. I don't blame the Dems for fighting back against years of dirty tricks by the GOP.
    One thing that comes of of the shenanigans in the US over the past few years is that we have by far a superior system where the government/politicians are largely separate from the judiciary.

    If we ever do go down the route of elected prosecutors and judges they should be independent and non-party affiliated.

    Good morning PB.
    Yes, the UK system is an awful lot better than the US system where, as others have said, it’s now two football teams trying to get players into positions such as prosecutors and judges. There has to be a gap between politics and law in a democracy, otherwise we end up with anarchy.

    The only UK case of political prosecution that immediately springs to mind, was the Electoral Commission vs Darren Grimes - which was eventually resolved in the young man’s favour, by an independent judiciary.
    One of the reasons why I don't believe police commissioners should be an elected post.
    In the very funny and no doubt accurate "Wasting Police Time" books, which outline the idiocy of much of modern policing, and the futility of much instruction from "above", the one thing that is recommended to make the police more accountable and responsive to local issues is elected police commissioners who would set locally-derived priorities for the police. That is a good thing.

    It's not their fault that the British electorate couldn't give two hoots about them and turnout is low teens.
    An admirable objective but it introduces unnecessary political bias into policing.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731
    edited April 2023
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.

    That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.

    Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”

    Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.

    But the actual differences, not a lot.
    Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
    A couple of things there.

    1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.

    2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),

    3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.

    4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
    2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.

    3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.

    4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
    It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
    And mine was aimed right back at you...although I wouldn't want to disturb your complacency in your admiration of Fascism.
    Nice to see that calling for justice not to be used as a political football and to recognise that both sides need to stop claiming they have the absolute hold on truth is now "an admiration of Fascism".

    And this coming from the poster who thinks it is entirely acceptable to outlaw one of the two major political parties in the United States.

    Now go off and polish your jackboots. Make sure you trim that toothbrush moustache of yours as well.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    You're just too committed to one side.

    You happily argue tit for tat and justify it. But neither dems or reps have a clean record.

    I regret to say this nonsense ends up being imitated back in the UK and if the Sates cant hold the line were all headed down the rabbit hole with them in say 5-10 years time.
    Why do you say I'm arguing tit for tat ?

    I could equally say that you're urging unilateral surrender for liberals.

    Both would be empty rhetoric.
    I argue that because your reaction has been to quote a rep stupidity in your defence instead of standing back on first principles and calling out stupidity for what it is.

    If the "adults" in the US cant manage to put the genie back in the bottle then the States is in deep shit and we'll follow them.

    I'm still of the view that the Dems can quite happily defeat Trump in a straighforward contest without the judicial jiggery pokery. Maybe they are less sure but then they have to get their act together.
    I think you're ignoring reality.
    Wisconsin is a state where the minority have imposed their will on the majority by tampering with democracy to a sufficient extent to give themselves nearly two thirds of the seats in the state legislature on just under half of the popular vote.

    You're effectively saying the the Democrats should just be good sports about that.

    And if the Presidential election comes down to Wisconsin (entirely possible), the only thing stopping the state legislature from appointing state electors in defiance of the popular vote might be the State Supreme Court.

    Though Republicans have a possible run around that, too, with the so called "independent state legislature" theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory
    ...The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power...
    This is why they're so dangerous. The organisation which they have put to subverting the electoral process is widespread and far-reaching.

    Fortunately, it's also not very effective, but that could easily change.

    Would banning the Republicans as suggested by KitchenCabinet be the answer? Possibly - even probably - not. That organisation might transfer to a new party, as the old FreeSoil movement did to the Republicans.

    And it certainly wouldn't deal with the many other problems unless during the temporary eclipse of the right the Democrats were able to at least host a constitutional convention, which (a) seems unlikely given their starry-eyed love of the constitution and (b) might not be the best outcome anyway given they are also highly partisan.

    Realistically the one chance for America is that a candidate who isn't mad like Trump, malign like De Santis or compromised like Pence emerges as the Republican candidate, wins, takes on the base and then wins that battle too. Trouble is, I can't see who that might be. Haley could do the second part but has little chance of winning the nomination.

    Which means - it's headed a dark way.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    I don't disagree.
    It was likely the recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision on abortion which swung this race.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/five-takeaways-from-liberals-big-election-night-win-in-wisconsin-00090519
    ...a liberal court is widely expected to knock down an 1840s era abortion ban that’s been on the books and only revived after Roe v. Wade fell last summer...

    You comment as though this contest happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

    Wisconsin is a state where Biden won the popular vote (by a very slim majority). You'd expect the state government to reflect that.
    Instead, Republicans have a supermajority in both state houses; Wisconsin is one if the most heavily gerrymandered states in the US.

    So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your moralising.
    Yep ...

    When Democrat Tony Evers won election as governor in 2018, Democrats won all four statewide races. They also won 53% of the votes for state assembly — 203,000 more votes than the Republicans did — but because of gerrymandering, the Democrats got just 36% of the seats in the legislature. The Republicans there immediately held a lame duck session and stripped powers from Evers and Democratic attorney general Josh Kaul. Then they passed new laws to restrict voting rights. The legislature went on to block Evers’s appointees and block his legislative priorities, like healthcare, schools, and roads.

    Polls showed that voters opposed the lame duck session by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and by 2020, 82% of Wisconsin voters had passed referenda calling for fair district maps.

    But when it came time to redistrict after the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature carved up the state into an even more pro-Republican map than it had put into place before. Ultimately, the new maps gave Republicans 63 out of 99 seats in the assembly and 22 out of 23 in the state senate. They came within two assembly seats of having a supermajority that would enable them to override any vetoes by the governor, essentially nullifying him, although Evers had been reelected by 53.5% of the vote – a large margin for Wisconsin.

    https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/heather-richardson/republicans-rigged-system-pretense-election-used-hostile-take-wisconsins-democracy/

    But the point is that it happens in Democrat states as well - both sides are at it, not just one.

    The reason why the Democrats lost so many NY seats was because the NY Supreme Court said the gerrymandering was so extreme by the Democrat supermajority that it threw out their plan and imposed an independent adjudicator that came up with a more balanced split.

    If you want an example of even more extreme Democrat gerrymandering, look at Illinois.

    This Illinois?

    Overall, Illinois does not set off statistical alarms for partisan gerrymandering. Illinois has multiple opportunity-to-elect districts, drawn under the guidance of state law, the Voting Rights Act, and the Constitution.

    https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/IL

    Yes that one - even the NY Times said it "would be among the most gerrymandered in the country."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/illinois-democrats-gerrymander.html
    The 2020 result in Illinois was 57 - 40 for Biden over Trump.
    Any comparison with Wisconsin is more than a stretch.
    But that wasn't Southam's point. HIs point was Illinois wasn't gerrymandered. I merely pointed out the NYT said otherwise.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    edited April 2023

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.
    If I can sum up your attitude, it would seem to be "anything is justified at the moment to stop the Republicans getting back into power as they are so bad." As I have asked before, if that is your attitude, why not have the guts and call for an outright ban of the party as a threat to Democracy?

    As to your views, they are mirrored on the opposite side of the fence. Republicans think Democrats are cheats, engage in widespread election fraud (especially in the big cities) and rig the process. Your absolutism is matched by the other side.

    You should read 'Why Nations Fail'. One of the key points it says is needed for a successful democracy is that both sides accept defeat. Trump didn't, which is why he is entirely unsuitable as the next candidate. But your views are equally dangerous.

    Frankly, after the way they behaved last time that would be acceptable. They and their supporters are apologists for outright fascism and a real menace to any form of democracy. And if they do not believe in democracy they have no right to benefit from it.

    However, banning parties doesn't usually solve the problem. The real key is to work out what the issues are. And unfortunately for the USA the problems go wider then the Republican Party. Their daft Constitution. The weaknesses of state and federal government. The lawlessness and violence. The antediluvian healthcare system that costs a fortune but is still hopelessly inadequate.

    Republicans may think what they like, and clearly do. I am neither a member or a supporter of the Democrats. I am just calling facts. As follows:

    1) The Republicans engaged in massive fraud, including but not limited to voter suppression, intimidation, misuse of funds, vexatious court cases and deliberate misstatements on procedure. The Democrats did not.

    2) When this failed, they turned to violence to try and overturn an election result. The Democrats did not.

    3) They are now trying to block criminal investigations into various matters, including serious criminal actions for personal gain, by their leadership. The Democrats have not.

    Now, I'm happy to say that in your simplistic and not so far cited claim that this judge will rule as 'Democrats good, Republicans bad' that means the latter is a statement of fact. It is genuinely alarming if you are so dim you can't see this. But I would advise you if you are genuinely are that stupid not to try to patronise anyone by making false assumptions about what they have or have not read.
    A couple of things there.

    1. Good for being honest and saying a ban would be acceptable.

    2. Re your facts, as I stated, the other side would claim the same. Romney in 2012 considered fighting Obama's win because his team believed the Democrats had committed fraud in major cities that swung the vote but decided not to because of the ramifications (Nixon ditto in 1960),

    3. There are many types of coup ('A Very British Coup' sums this up). I would argue one candidate paying for false material to be dug about the other, using that false information to persuade a domestic intelligence agency to get a court order to wire tap the opposing candidate and then making claims that their election victory was illegitimate due to the 'massive' electoral interference from a hostile power was another type of attempted coup.

    4. I am stupid, as I take Socrates' maxim that we are all stupid as we cannot know everything and cannot be right on everything. One thing I can recognise though is an arrogant prick who bathes in their own self-righteousness.
    2) They can claim it but they would be lying. There is a big gap between 'considered' and 'stage a violent coup on the basis of false claims' and it's a bit worrying you can't see that.

    3) That was fiction. I'm talking facts.

    4) Kudos to you for admitting it, but I do love the irony of your last sentence. Was it intentional?
    It was indeed. Aimed at yourself by the way. Not that I would like to accuse you of being thick for not recognising it.
    And mine was aimed right back at you...although I wouldn't want to disturb your complacency in your admiration of Fascism.
    Nice to see that calling for justice not to be used as a political football and to recognise that both sides need to stop claiming they have the absolute hold on truth is now "an admiration of Fascism".

    And this coming from the poster who thinks it is entirely acceptable to outlaw one of the two major political parties in the United States.

    Now go off and polish your jackboots. Make sure you trim that toothbrush moustache of yours as well.
    I love you, Kitchen Cabinet. The deliciousness of your ironies is beyond taste. After all, you are the one who wants violent criminals to have their violent criminality ignored.

    By the way - what was your source for the false claim about election spending? Or indeed, for 'Republicans bad, Democrats good?'
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,130
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.

    That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.

    Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”

    Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.

    But the actual differences, not a lot.
    America will still have to look to Russia as well as China, because Russia threatens nuclear blackmail. "Give me want I want, or it's nukes..."
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,855
    rcs1000 said:

    Those numbers are much worse for Mr Trump than I would have expected. Only 61% of Republicans disapprove of the filing of charges.

    I expect the Republican disapproval number will soar, though.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    Let's reverse the statement and see how much you would be proclaiming it to be the death of democracy.
    It’s a statement of fact. The Republicans *are* bad. They have demonstrated they are dedicated to violence, intimidation, fraud and the overthrow of democracy. I can’t help it if you don’t like that, it remains a fact.

    The death of democracy was Trump’s decision to commit widespread electoral fraud and the Republicans’ decision to back him. Not the Democrats getting uppity about it.

    America is very lucky that they proved so incompetent at it. If De Santis who is not incompetent went down the same path, they would be in real trouble.

    What I find inexplicable is Europe's complete failure to prepare for the possibility of a GOP president after the 2024 election. It looks to me to be an extraordinary abdication of responsibility - and one that will become unforgivable should it happen. If Putin can hold on in Ukraine until a Republican gets into the White House, it has the potential to change everything. That there seems to have been no serious contingency planning for this scenario in London, Paris and Berlin is utterly bizarre.


    You don’t know there’s no contingency planning

    That just haven’t shared it with you

    I do know that there has been no significant increases in defence spending in either the UK or France, that no additional capacity to manufacture arms and equipment has been created and that without significant US backing Ukraine would find it next to impossible to defend its current positions,
    let alone drive the Russians back.

    Increased manufacturing is being done within the contingency budget. Budget increases have been announced for future years

    Additional capacity unfortunately takes time, but the current sites are humming

    But you are right that without US support Ukraine will be in a very difficult position. That is a fact of life - it’s a strategic weakness that will take years to address so it’s not just a question of “contingency planning”
    Trump accused Europe of freeloading off the US defence budget and ignoring its own security. He was right.
    Indeed so, and in future the US will be turning its attention towards the threat from China rather than Russia.

    That all said, I do think the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House, will be one of semantics more than action.

    Biden will stand up proudly and say “Here I give $50bn in military aid to Ukraine”

    Trump will stand up proudly and say. “Here I announce $50bn of new weapons systems to protect our great country, securing 100,000 skilled jobs, and showing to the world how great is America. Meanwhile, the old, obsolete systems that these great new weapons replace, will be given to our closest NATO allies. We will also spend $1bn on new ammunition for these old systems”.

    But the actual differences, not a lot.
    Trump would likely abandon Ukraine overnight.
    That's an incredibly optimistic comment. Surely there's nothing 'likely' about it?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,897

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Arguably the more significant news from the US last night is that a liberal won the election for the seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, denying Republicans a majority.

    Most expensive such contest in history.

    Probably the most skewed also when it came to spending - the Democrats sending 15-20x what the Republicans did due to a massive influx of money from extremely rich Democrat sponsors (and, yes, George Soros was in there).

    New Justice sounds like her decision making process will be "Republican bad, Democrat good".
    Tbf, the former is an eminently reasonable position right now.
    No its not. Using the justice system to play politics simply invalidates the justice system. A democracy cant survive that.
    Well that's elected judges for you. I'm surprised it's held together as well as it has, which is a credit to judges trying not to be partisan all the time, but if you make it political it becomes political after all.
This discussion has been closed.