At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
My effective tax rate on all income is around 52%. Because reasons. I must have one of the highest ETRs in the entire labour force.
Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton Exclusive: Whistleblower exposes Home Office's asylum system:
"I work in the Home Office deciding whether to grant people asylum, and I am terrified that one day one of my cases will end up on the news.
There has been no internal communication about the recent acid attack case. Nothing. Not even an email telling us that they are looking into how it could have been allowed to happen.
Instead we are bombarded with emails that celebrate things like “World Hijab Day’’ at the same time as I deal with cases of women claiming they cannot go back to Iran otherwise they will be forced into wearing these items.
Asylum seekers will be coached, often by legal representatives or through friends and family (some of whom may have been granted asylum in the past), to concoct a reason they might be persecuted in their home country. They “convert” to Christianity, often coming with evidence of recent baptisms, or say they are gay and take pictures in gay nightclubs to prove it (some of these photos look as though they are very uncomfortable being there).
In one instance a male claimed that he was gay, only to drop the assertion halfway through his asylum interview because he felt so disgusted by the idea.
In one interview the claimant insisted that he was being persecuted in his home country due to his political beliefs. I asked him to name the leader of his nation’s opposition party and he couldn’t answer. He asked for a break and came back ten minutes later knowing everything about the political situation.
The Home Office is hostile to those who speak up internally, unless their complaint is about diversity or discrimination or some other civil service obsession.
Home Office directives and pressure to clear the backlog of asylum cases has caused caseworkers to cut corners. The default is now to err on the side of accepting people. For example, we have been told to cut down the time it takes to conduct asylum interviews, which has led to confusion and a lack of clarity over some cases.
Even as someone who is sceptical of many applications, internal targets and incentives mean that I feel under huge pressure to accept people. It takes less than half an hour to accept a case, while it takes around a day to write up a report to reject someone (this is because you have to lay out the evidence as to why you rejected it for legal reasons, which is a timely process).
The top brass have told us to be on the lookout for applications (even citing a string of recent cases), that use the same wording, or similar stories, and are often submitted by people using the same immigration lawyer. We know that many law firms tell applicants to submit the same hokum that has been proven to work previously but we have not been told to stop granting asylum in these cases." 5:10 PM · Feb 9, 2024"
As someone entrusted with handling vulnerable people's personal information, it's fairly fucking vile for this civil servant to be spreading confidential details like this about, is it not? And the journalist involved should know better than to be amplifying the privacy breach without redacting any of the key details.
Will the ICO be taking action against the Telegraph?
I’m not seeing names or other identifiable information. This surely counts as whistleblowing.
There has been a marked increase in the success rate of applications over the last couple of years. If this is being driven by a desperation to reduce the backlog it is in the public interest to know about it.
It's like when there is a big queue at the ticket barriers to leave the station so they just open them up and let everyone through. Just like the fare dodgers, the bogus claimants get away with it.
PM: Mercury CoE: Barlow Foreign sec: Bono Home sec: Morrissey Justice: Glitter Health: Winehouse Education: Waters Transport: Rea DEFRA: Sharkey Defence: Blunt Business: Tennant International development: Geldof Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Bush
I know there are various others but that’ll do.
I fucking hate Bono.
Plus nowadays Geldof would get CoE instead anyway. Give us your f***ing money.
[Edit: sorry, misreading over from CoS etc and Mr G's charitable fundraising. But the issue is still interesting.]
Talking about banging fists on the table and the C of E, this was quite startling especially in view of the recent discussion on PB of the liabilities of parish church council members:
'A separate paper to the synod describes the bullying of clergy as a “grievous stain on the life of the church” and calls for church legislation to allow the disqualification of church wardens, PCC members and other lay officers. It points out that a priest who is found guilty of bullying can be disciplined and removed from their post but there is no equivalent penalty for lay officers.'
Reasonable.
Geldof is actually quite supportive of his local C of E Parish church and knows the Vicar well who we also know
Quite so to both. I don't know if you saw the discussion of the responsibilities of charity trustees on PB. It was an interesting one (I've had to consider whether or not to get involved in several) and the C of E PCCs were raised as an example of a category where people might not be aware of their full liabilities.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
Floating voters are wild. People have this image of them being floating because they're in the middle but in reality it often seems to be that they have an eclectic mixture of extreme opinions.
PM: Mercury CoE: Barlow Foreign sec: Bono Home sec: Morrissey Justice: Glitter Health: Winehouse Education: Waters Transport: Rea DEFRA: Sharkey Defence: Blunt Business: Tennant International development: Geldof Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Bush
I know there are various others but that’ll do.
I fucking hate Bono.
I was considering Adele or McCartney for the role too.
I really don't think you appreciate the depths of my disdain for Bono.
PM: Mercury CoE: Barlow Foreign sec: Bono Home sec: Morrissey Justice: Glitter Health: Winehouse Education: Waters Transport: Rea DEFRA: Sharkey Defence: Blunt Business: Tennant International development: Geldof Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Bush
I know there are various others but that’ll do.
I fucking hate Bono.
I was considering Adele or McCartney for the role too.
I really don't think you appreciate the depths of my disdain for Bono.
Is Thom Yorke available Tims? Asking for a friend. Primarily just to stop him whinging
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
My effective tax rate on all income is around 52%. Because reasons. I must have one of the highest ETRs in the entire labour force.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I am not entirely sure I would grace this with the verb "think". Its irrational on so many levels.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I'm unaccountably reminded of the gent who founded the last Northumbria Party IIRC. Now Scottish Tories via Slab.
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
My effective tax rate on all income is around 52%. Because reasons. I must have one of the highest ETRs in the entire labour force.
"This 3,000-year-old gold treasure found in Spain contains jewelry made with metals from 'beyond planet Earth', scientists say
A new analysis of the Treasure of Villena reveals some feature 'alien metals' Scientists found two objects, a cap and bracelet, contained the metals Read More: Tutankhamun dagger was also made from 'alien metals'"
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I am not entirely sure I would grace this with the verb "think". Its irrational on so many levels.
There’s a definite body of opinion that hates anything vaguely “centrist” and liberal with a passion greater than their hatred of the supposed other side. It’s an aspect of horeshoe but seems more visceral. It’s the hatred of the smug Davos elite, the corporatised establishment. Understandable because the smugness definitely exists, but it’s sometimes taken to weird extremes.
Breaking News: Morrissey has resigned from the government, saying in a statement about the position he's held: "It pays my way but it corrodes my soul."
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
Floating voters are wild. People have this image of them being floating because they're in the middle but in reality it often seems to be that they have an eclectic mixture of extreme opinions.
Yes, we tend to think of them as Liberal Democrat types, really like the money and the privilege but feel guilty about it all, that sort of thing. Whilst in reality they are all too often nuts and all over the place, worse than Greens.
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
My effective tax rate on all income is around 52%. Because reasons. I must have one of the highest ETRs in the entire labour force.
Bloody hell how is that even possible? I will check my tax return in the morning and figure out what my effective tax rate is, but from memory I think it is in the low 40s.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Even if we accept your premise, you also very rarely get really, really bad ones.
And a Max-Min strategy is almost certainly a winning one. Simply bad leaders do a lot more damage than good leaders do good.
Especially if you accept the premise that good leaders eventually suffer from fatigue and 'become bad'.
There's lots of good reasons for that, including that it's difficult to be the best critic of your own work. Leaders may come to power correctly diagnosing what is wrong with the government of the day, but ten years into power something else will have gone wrong and it's probably partly their fault, intentional or not. A fresh pair of eyes is typically better at that point.
What autocracy/dictatorship does is separate leaders into: 1) Useless leaders who would be rubbish under any system, but now have the job for life. Picture Truss as our eternal leader for another two decades. 2) Initially competent leaders who fail under the passage of time. Think Blair, Cameron, Thatcher. 3) Leaders who remain excellent for decades at a time. No UK examples there.
Dictatorships are a gamble that a given person ends up being the frankly mythical third type of person.
And that's why they (almost always) end up failing miserably.
But good democratic governance requires a reasonably intelligent and well educated population. Otherwise you end up with south america.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
gabyhinsliff @gabyhinsliff · 3h I didn’t think I wanted to watch a real life covid drama but having seen a preview of @doctor_oxford’s Breathtaking & interviewed her about it for @GraziaUK it turns out I was completely wrong (no change there then)
gabyhinsliff @gabyhinsliff · 54m Funny you should say that. No spoilers etc but my first thought after watching first three episodes was that this changes the climate around the junior drs’ strike (more so now the next one is set for end Feb)
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
Bet Carlson was cursing him "This was the biggest interview of my life and you are ruining it"
"This 3,000-year-old gold treasure found in Spain contains jewelry made with metals from 'beyond planet Earth', scientists say
A new analysis of the Treasure of Villena reveals some feature 'alien metals' Scientists found two objects, a cap and bracelet, contained the metals Read More: Tutankhamun dagger was also made from 'alien metals'"
All metals are from ‘beyond planet Earth’ as they originated in stars.
"The same lawyers also argued that the 14th amendment says people who engaged in an insurrection cannot “hold” office, but does not bar them from running for office. “But the point of running for office is to hold office!” Colbert exclaimed. “Unless you’re Nikki Haley – we’re not sure what her point is.”
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
Floating voters are wild. People have this image of them being floating because they're in the middle but in reality it often seems to be that they have an eclectic mixture of extreme opinions.
Yes, we tend to think of them as Liberal Democrat types, really like the money and the privilege but feel guilty about it all, that sort of thing. Whilst in reality they are all too often nuts and all over the place, worse than Greens.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
Bet Carlson was cursing him "This was the biggest interview of my life and you are ruining it"
If this account is to be believed (who knows ?) the Russians weren't happy with Putin’s performance, either.
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say that the problem is the unpreparedness of the interview arrangement - it was Gromov's and Peskov's mistake. Putin should have talked about conservative values, the creation of a conservative alliance, and moving on - but he went into history and platitudes about Ukraine. Naryshkin, who allegedly planted ideas with documents of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi and nonsense with Poland, also played a negative role here. He set Putin up to the fullest. Medinsky would not allow such a thing."
According to reports, Putin didn't like Tucker Carlson - "a snob and a useful idiot who got a meaningful fee, but was lazy and lacked creativity." Kovalchuk family believes they could have done better with Tucker Carlson, but "everything was wasted." There's a wave of complaints in the Kremlin.
Basically if you say "I'm going to put a black woman in the VP slot" then the time comes to get the actual top job you elbow her aside for a white man it doesn't look great. Although most of the voters don't seem to care about presidential gender there are some people in the Democratic Party who really do, and they've been feeling cheezed off ever since Obama beat Hillary. (Remember PUMA?) So if Biden was going to arrange to pass the baton to someone who isn't Kamala Harris, it would make sense to pick a woman, preferably a black woman. The black woman bench isn't very deep, but there are good woman candidates (Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR) and also good black candidates (Booker, Warnock). I think the Betfair odds are right in putting them in that order.
I think Newsom is a bubble, but at least he's clearly running.
I have a friend whose first foray into politics was Obama vs Hillary, and it still informs so many of her views. She has a house in in Sheffield, but mostly lives on Twitter. Was a Corbynite but is now a fanatical supporter of the Northern Independence Party. And Trump. No matter how bad he was, she still supported Trump in 2016. Because "he beat Obama". Or, er, something.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
I'm unaccountably reminded of the gent who founded the last Northumbria Party IIRC. Now Scottish Tories via Slab.
Hilariously, the people behind the Northern Independence Party were Saddam Hussein fans from Battersea and Brighton.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
Bet Carlson was cursing him "This was the biggest interview of my life and you are ruining it"
If this account is to be believed (who knows ?) the Russians weren't happy with Putin’s performance, either.
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say that the problem is the unpreparedness of the interview arrangement - it was Gromov's and Peskov's mistake. Putin should have talked about conservative values, the creation of a conservative alliance, and moving on - but he went into history and platitudes about Ukraine. Naryshkin, who allegedly planted ideas with documents of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi and nonsense with Poland, also played a negative role here. He set Putin up to the fullest. Medinsky would not allow such a thing."
According to reports, Putin didn't like Tucker Carlson - "a snob and a useful idiot who got a meaningful fee, but was lazy and lacked creativity." Kovalchuk family believes they could have done better with Tucker Carlson, but "everything was wasted." There's a wave of complaints in the Kremlin.
That’s the sound of people edging away from windows with a nervous expression….
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
Bet Carlson was cursing him "This was the biggest interview of my life and you are ruining it"
If this account is to be believed (who knows ?) the Russians weren't happy with Putin’s performance, either.
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say that the problem is the unpreparedness of the interview arrangement - it was Gromov's and Peskov's mistake. Putin should have talked about conservative values, the creation of a conservative alliance, and moving on - but he went into history and platitudes about Ukraine. Naryshkin, who allegedly planted ideas with documents of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi and nonsense with Poland, also played a negative role here. He set Putin up to the fullest. Medinsky would not allow such a thing."
According to reports, Putin didn't like Tucker Carlson - "a snob and a useful idiot who got a meaningful fee, but was lazy and lacked creativity." Kovalchuk family believes they could have done better with Tucker Carlson, but "everything was wasted." There's a wave of complaints in the Kremlin.
That’s the sound of people edging away from windows with a nervous expression….
I’d like to know what constitutes a ‘useful fee’. After all, Tucker’s not short of a buck.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
How the hell did he think it was a good idea to go back to 862 ad.
‘Somewhat terrified’: A key Biden official gets candid on Trump’s agenda Eric Beightel, one of the Biden administration’s top infrastructure officials, worries that the ex-president’s return would be “catastrophic” for clean energy projects — especially offshore wind. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/08/trump-wind-power-crusade-00140128
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
Yup - planned or not, The Fucker ended up giving Putin all the rope he wanted. As ever, with this type of rum blossom, he used it to hang himself.
Irridentism is always like that. Which is why it makes such good material for parodies.
I can’t honestly think of one of these guys who managed to sound vaguely normal at interview. I think Saddam came close a couple of times.
In a sense it’s a waste of time complaining about the ‘fairness’ of the Biden report, and it’s really not going to alter the damage it’s done him, but FWIW, I agree with Holder.
Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Even if we accept your premise, you also very rarely get really, really bad ones.
And a Max-Min strategy is almost certainly a winning one. Simply bad leaders do a lot more damage than good leaders do good.
Especially if you accept the premise that good leaders eventually suffer from fatigue and 'become bad'.
There's lots of good reasons for that, including that it's difficult to be the best critic of your own work. Leaders may come to power correctly diagnosing what is wrong with the government of the day, but ten years into power something else will have gone wrong and it's probably partly their fault, intentional or not. A fresh pair of eyes is typically better at that point.
What autocracy/dictatorship does is separate leaders into: 1) Useless leaders who would be rubbish under any system, but now have the job for life. Picture Truss as our eternal leader for another two decades. 2) Initially competent leaders who fail under the passage of time. Think Blair, Cameron, Thatcher. 3) Leaders who remain excellent for decades at a time. No UK examples there.
Dictatorships are a gamble that a given person ends up being the frankly mythical third type of person.
And that's why they (almost always) end up failing miserably.
We've had plenty of examples of almost-3), though. Russell. Gladstone. Squiffy. Macmillan. Even fucking Churchill. It's wrong to be so complacent.
(I suspect that Lloyd-George is the closest the UK has ever come towards dictatorship in the modern era, but thankfully events and his own conscience conspired against him.)
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
My effective tax rate on all income is around 52%. Because reasons. I must have one of the highest ETRs in the entire labour force.
Bloody hell how is that even possible? I will check my tax return in the morning and figure out what my effective tax rate is, but from memory I think it is in the low 40s.
Non deductible costs, timing differences, NI of course, basically various things adding up.
I’m used to it, and don’t begrudge the rate particularly.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
How the hell did he think it was a good idea to go back to 862 ad.
Irridentism Club always starts out with an appeal to pre-history, To an idyllic time when Men Were Men. They were hard times - but honest. And men were hard.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
It seems to have been accidental, more to do with Tucker’s amateurishness than anything planned, but it does seem to have had nothing like the effect Putin would have intended.
Better still would have been a John Simpson interview. I remember his Gaddafi one, with the farts. Utterly fruitloop.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
Yup - planned or not, The Fucker ended up giving Putin all the rope he wanted. As ever, with this type of rum blossom, he used it to hang himself.
Irridentism is always like that. Which is why it makes such good material for parodies.
I can’t honestly think of one of these guys who managed to sound vaguely normal at interview. I think Saddam came close a couple of times.
Very interesting here from Zac Goldsmith. Fits in with my thesis that many in the west are looking for a strong man leader.
The reaction to the Putin interview is fascinating. It is true he comes across as supremely confident, intelligent, clear. In times of instability these are qualities people want in a leader and the comparison with the west where we have a collective breakdown over a person being ‘misgendered’ even while the world around us is falling apart - is stark.
But even while of course there are things we do not know, we do know that his political rivals are made to disappear, minorities are persecuted, free discussion and debate is impossible in Putin’s Russia, he is an expansionist aggressor… and much more besides.
It is hard to avoid the feeling that those who are drawn to the qualities he does have would have been similarly awed by an interview with any number of history’s monsters.
But unless and until the West learns confidence in itself, resists interest groups that exploit our foundations of free speech and democracy in order to undermine those very same qualities, finds the strength to put the brakes on the managed chaos and middle we allow rival powers to export into young minds via highly sophisticated disruptive apps like TikTok, we will find the west increasingly turning to the ‘strong man’ alternative. 9:11 AM · Feb 9, 2024 · 314K Views
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
By his own account, he’s also into S&M.
Authoritarianism needs takers as well as givers.
It’s about worshiping order. Trying to make the world linear. All nice and tidy, with lovely matching parades of well dressed soldiers all goose stepping together.
To become a faceless spade wielder at the Cathedral Of Light. Sacrificing your individuality to The Leader.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
It is the search for simplistic solutions in a baffling and confusing world. We want someone who can explain it to us in a way we can understand and which makes sense even if it doesn't actually work in practice.
The grim reality is leaders who, despite being of well above average intelligence and education, blunder from one failure to the next, like Sunak. Once you can accept that that is the way the world is and you have to make the best of it you are on the way to calling yourself a Stoic.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
It is the search for simplistic solutions in a baffling and confusing world. We want someone who can explain it to us in a way we can understand and which makes sense even if it doesn't actually work in practice.
The grim reality is leaders who, despite being of well above average intelligence and education, blunder from one failure to the next, like Sunak. Once you can accept that that is the way the world is and you have to make the best of it you are on the way to calling yourself a Stoic.
I feel like "Brexit Means Brexit" would have sounded much better had Julius Caesar said it.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
By his own account, he’s also into S&M.
Authoritarianism needs takers as well as givers.
It’s about worshiping order. Trying to make the world linear. All nice and tidy, with lovely matching parades of well dressed soldiers all goose stepping together.
To become a faceless spade wielder at the Cathedral Of Light. Sacrificing your individuality to The Leader.
But that also happens in many large corporations under capitalism. If you ask young people if they would prefer a strong man leader who would make housing cheap and affordable most would say yes.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
Yup - planned or not, The Fucker ended up giving Putin all the rope he wanted. As ever, with this type of rum blossom, he used it to hang himself.
Irridentism is always like that. Which is why it makes such good material for parodies.
I can’t honestly think of one of these guys who managed to sound vaguely normal at interview. I think Saddam came close a couple of times.
Bashar al-Assad maybe.
Yes, he always comes across as frighteningly level headed. He’s not an irredentist particularly of course. No grand theories or plans for world domination. More in the long line of small time thugs wanting to keep control of their little patch, like Mugabe, Various Egyptians, the Saudi royals, and the old European counts and crown princes of the 19th century.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Even if we accept your premise, you also very rarely get really, really bad ones.
And a Max-Min strategy is almost certainly a winning one. Simply bad leaders do a lot more damage than good leaders do good.
Especially if you accept the premise that good leaders eventually suffer from fatigue and 'become bad'.
There's lots of good reasons for that, including that it's difficult to be the best critic of your own work. Leaders may come to power correctly diagnosing what is wrong with the government of the day, but ten years into power something else will have gone wrong and it's probably partly their fault, intentional or not. A fresh pair of eyes is typically better at that point.
What autocracy/dictatorship does is separate leaders into: 1) Useless leaders who would be rubbish under any system, but now have the job for life. Picture Truss as our eternal leader for another two decades. 2) Initially competent leaders who fail under the passage of time. Think Blair, Cameron, Thatcher. 3) Leaders who remain excellent for decades at a time. No UK examples there.
Dictatorships are a gamble that a given person ends up being the frankly mythical third type of person.
And that's why they (almost always) end up failing miserably.
We've had plenty of examples of almost-3), though. Russell. Gladstone. Squiffy. Macmillan. Even fucking Churchill. It's wrong to be so complacent.
(I suspect that Lloyd-George is the closest the UK has ever come towards dictatorship in the modern era, but thankfully events and his own conscience conspired against him.)
I'm glad you mentioned Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
Yeah, mine is 41%, or 47% including EE NICs. Why am I paying more than the PM and yet can't (yet) afford the deposit for a house?
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
Yeah, mine is 41%, or 47% including EE NICs. Why am I paying more than the PM and yet can't (yet) afford the deposit for a house?
As of today, Labour have no plans to increase CGT. If they secretly do, I doubt it will make the manifesto.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
It is the search for simplistic solutions in a baffling and confusing world. We want someone who can explain it to us in a way we can understand and which makes sense even if it doesn't actually work in practice.
The grim reality is leaders who, despite being of well above average intelligence and education, blunder from one failure to the next, like Sunak. Once you can accept that that is the way the world is and you have to make the best of it you are on the way to calling yourself a Stoic.
I feel like "Brexit Means Brexit" would have sounded much better had Julius Caesar said it.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Even if we accept your premise, you also very rarely get really, really bad ones.
And a Max-Min strategy is almost certainly a winning one. Simply bad leaders do a lot more damage than good leaders do good.
Especially if you accept the premise that good leaders eventually suffer from fatigue and 'become bad'.
There's lots of good reasons for that, including that it's difficult to be the best critic of your own work. Leaders may come to power correctly diagnosing what is wrong with the government of the day, but ten years into power something else will have gone wrong and it's probably partly their fault, intentional or not. A fresh pair of eyes is typically better at that point.
What autocracy/dictatorship does is separate leaders into: 1) Useless leaders who would be rubbish under any system, but now have the job for life. Picture Truss as our eternal leader for another two decades. 2) Initially competent leaders who fail under the passage of time. Think Blair, Cameron, Thatcher. 3) Leaders who remain excellent for decades at a time. No UK examples there.
Dictatorships are a gamble that a given person ends up being the frankly mythical third type of person.
And that's why they (almost always) end up failing miserably.
We've had plenty of examples of almost-3), though. Russell. Gladstone. Squiffy. Macmillan. Even fucking Churchill. It's wrong to be so complacent.
(I suspect that Lloyd-George is the closest the UK has ever come towards dictatorship in the modern era, but thankfully events and his own conscience conspired against him.)
I'm glad you mentioned Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
- Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947.
Just might have been what I was drawing upon. As a lawyer I am banned from being original.
Very interesting here from Zac Goldsmith. Fits in with my thesis that many in the west are looking for a strong man leader.
The reaction to the Putin interview is fascinating. It is true he comes across as supremely confident, intelligent, clear. In times of instability these are qualities people want in a leader and the comparison with the west where we have a collective breakdown over a person being ‘misgendered’ even while the world around us is falling apart - is stark.
But even while of course there are things we do not know, we do know that his political rivals are made to disappear, minorities are persecuted, free discussion and debate is impossible in Putin’s Russia, he is an expansionist aggressor… and much more besides.
It is hard to avoid the feeling that those who are drawn to the qualities he does have would have been similarly awed by an interview with any number of history’s monsters.
But unless and until the West learns confidence in itself, resists interest groups that exploit our foundations of free speech and democracy in order to undermine those very same qualities, finds the strength to put the brakes on the managed chaos and middle we allow rival powers to export into young minds via highly sophisticated disruptive apps like TikTok, we will find the west increasingly turning to the ‘strong man’ alternative. 9:11 AM · Feb 9, 2024 · 314K Views
There's a contradiction between complaining that the West is not confident in itself whilst also complaining that people are using free speech for things he doesn't like.
(Incidentally, I assume "middle" should have been "muddle": he typo'd)
Very interesting here from Zac Goldsmith. Fits in with my thesis that many in the west are looking for a strong man leader.
The reaction to the Putin interview is fascinating. It is true he comes across as supremely confident, intelligent, clear. In times of instability these are qualities people want in a leader and the comparison with the west where we have a collective breakdown over a person being ‘misgendered’ even while the world around us is falling apart - is stark.
But even while of course there are things we do not know, we do know that his political rivals are made to disappear, minorities are persecuted, free discussion and debate is impossible in Putin’s Russia, he is an expansionist aggressor… and much more besides.
It is hard to avoid the feeling that those who are drawn to the qualities he does have would have been similarly awed by an interview with any number of history’s monsters.
But unless and until the West learns confidence in itself, resists interest groups that exploit our foundations of free speech and democracy in order to undermine those very same qualities, finds the strength to put the brakes on the managed chaos and middle we allow rival powers to export into young minds via highly sophisticated disruptive apps like TikTok, we will find the west increasingly turning to the ‘strong man’ alternative. 9:11 AM · Feb 9, 2024 · 314K Views
At least someone isn't suffering from our record high tax rates. My effective tax rate must be north of 40%, on a much lower income. I am so sick of these jokers taking us for mugs.
Yeah, mine is 41%, or 47% including EE NICs. Why am I paying more than the PM and yet can't (yet) afford the deposit for a house?
As of today, Labour have no plans to increase CGT. If they secretly do, I doubt it will make the manifesto.
Surely the words "to increase CGT" are superfluous?
Very interesting here from Zac Goldsmith. Fits in with my thesis that many in the west are looking for a strong man leader.
The reaction to the Putin interview is fascinating. It is true he comes across as supremely confident, intelligent, clear. In times of instability these are qualities people want in a leader and the comparison with the west where we have a collective breakdown over a person being ‘misgendered’ even while the world around us is falling apart - is stark.
But even while of course there are things we do not know, we do know that his political rivals are made to disappear, minorities are persecuted, free discussion and debate is impossible in Putin’s Russia, he is an expansionist aggressor… and much more besides.
It is hard to avoid the feeling that those who are drawn to the qualities he does have would have been similarly awed by an interview with any number of history’s monsters.
But unless and until the West learns confidence in itself, resists interest groups that exploit our foundations of free speech and democracy in order to undermine those very same qualities, finds the strength to put the brakes on the managed chaos and middle we allow rival powers to export into young minds via highly sophisticated disruptive apps like TikTok, we will find the west increasingly turning to the ‘strong man’ alternative. 9:11 AM · Feb 9, 2024 · 314K Views
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
By his own account, he’s also into S&M.
But isn't everyone, at least to some degree?
And if you must have someone kick your face, wouldn't you rather have Angela Rayner in her Irregular Choice, rather than some LKY-worshipping nerd wearing black polyester socks and cheap "designer" trainers?
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
By his own account, he’s also into S&M.
Authoritarianism needs takers as well as givers.
It’s about worshiping order. Trying to make the world linear. All nice and tidy, with lovely matching parades of well dressed soldiers all goose stepping together.
To become a faceless spade wielder at the Cathedral Of Light. Sacrificing your individuality to The Leader.
But that also happens in many large corporations under capitalism. If you ask young people if they would prefer a strong man leader who would make housing cheap and affordable most would say yes.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Even if we accept your premise, you also very rarely get really, really bad ones.
And a Max-Min strategy is almost certainly a winning one. Simply bad leaders do a lot more damage than good leaders do good.
Especially if you accept the premise that good leaders eventually suffer from fatigue and 'become bad'.
There's lots of good reasons for that, including that it's difficult to be the best critic of your own work. Leaders may come to power correctly diagnosing what is wrong with the government of the day, but ten years into power something else will have gone wrong and it's probably partly their fault, intentional or not. A fresh pair of eyes is typically better at that point.
What autocracy/dictatorship does is separate leaders into: 1) Useless leaders who would be rubbish under any system, but now have the job for life. Picture Truss as our eternal leader for another two decades. 2) Initially competent leaders who fail under the passage of time. Think Blair, Cameron, Thatcher. 3) Leaders who remain excellent for decades at a time. No UK examples there.
Dictatorships are a gamble that a given person ends up being the frankly mythical third type of person.
And that's why they (almost always) end up failing miserably.
We've had plenty of examples of almost-3), though. Russell. Gladstone. Squiffy. Macmillan. Even fucking Churchill. It's wrong to be so complacent.
(I suspect that Lloyd-George is the closest the UK has ever come towards dictatorship in the modern era, but thankfully events and his own conscience conspired against him.)
I'm glad you mentioned Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
- Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947.
Churchill was king of they hypocrites, of course, and would happily have seized dictatorial powers for himself if he could have.
Saved only by a certain Major Attlee, the penultimate person off beach during the final evacuation of the Gallipoli campaign in 1916. He knew all about Churchill's weaknesses, and was perfectly placed to keep him in check thereafter.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
How the hell did he think it was a good idea to go back to 862 ad.
Er, especially since from just 20 years after that, lasting for 400-ish years, the dominant driver of "Russian" history was, um, the Kyivan Rus...
A nonsense article from the Daily Mail - the "Jewish Building" in question is Hillel House, not the main uni building that they've pictured.
(I spent several years living off Burley Rd. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the more nutty types I knew then would involve themselves in such a thing, but the Daily Mail demeans themselves by getting so many basic facts wrong)
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
It is the search for simplistic solutions in a baffling and confusing world. We want someone who can explain it to us in a way we can understand and which makes sense even if it doesn't actually work in practice.
The grim reality is leaders who, despite being of well above average intelligence and education, blunder from one failure to the next, like Sunak. Once you can accept that that is the way the world is and you have to make the best of it you are on the way to calling yourself a Stoic.
I feel like "Brexit Means Brexit" would have sounded much better had Julius Caesar said it.
"Ave, Caesar Boris Imperator, Brexituri te salutant"
The best thing that could happen in the US in my opinion would be for the country to have a female president.
So you'd support Marjorie Taylor Greene? Or Sarah Palin? Or Megan Markle? Over better and more qualified men?
They should elect a female President when she is the best candidate for the job - not a day sooner or later. Favouring people as representatives of their gender, race, or similar for the most important job in the world is ridiculous, no matter how much white male guilt it assauges.
The best thing that could happen in the US in my opinion would be for the country to have a female president.
So you'd support Marjorie Taylor Greene? Or Sarah Palin? Or Megan Markle? Over better and more qualified men?
They should elect a female President when she is the best candidate for the job - not a day sooner or later. Favouring people as representatives of their gender, race, or similar for the most important job in the world is ridiculous, no matter how much white male guilt it assauges.
He's saying Kamala Harris should run instead of Biden.
In a sense it’s a waste of time complaining about the ‘fairness’ of the Biden report, and it’s really not going to alter the damage it’s done him, but FWIW, I agree with Holder.
Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
Biden has been easily the best POTUS of this century, despite his age. Not a high bar to be fair.
He deserves re-election, given the opposition before him.
The qualification is key though. What on earth is wrong with the US political system that these 2 very old, more than slightly senile and, in one case, malevolent, men are fighting it out yet again. Why is the system giving such poor choices?
In fairness we are going to be equally unenthused choosing between Sunak and Starmer (and we won't even bother mentioning Davey). Why can't we do better than this?
You very rarely get good leaders in a democracy. By definition to get elected you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Makes for bad govt.
Is that what they teach you in Moscow?
Actually you get far better leaders in democracies than autocracies. In a democracy a bad leader who has overstayed their welcome can be turfed out, while you're lumped with the same douchebag you had nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was better than most democratic leaders.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as a child when LKY was in charge. It was a bit weird.
The radio would say "put on a happy face" to encourage tourism and, as a child, you would have an entire bus load of people smiling at you somewhat inanely. And none of them would sit down until you chose a seat.
Another campaign was getting fitter. The music would blast out and everyone, including the grannies, would be out on their verandas doing exercises together almost north Korean style.
These things weren't happening without someone keeping a very close eye on anyone that was not complying. And I would not like to have been them. Not a society I would like to have been a part of for all their economic success.
LKY is currently weirdly popular amongst twentysomething edgelords. Like Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius. It's all very conformist and creepy. But mention Chrsyippus or Mathathir Mohammed, and even the greatest fans will not have heard of them.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
By his own account, he’s also into S&M.
Authoritarianism needs takers as well as givers.
It’s about worshiping order. Trying to make the world linear. All nice and tidy, with lovely matching parades of well dressed soldiers all goose stepping together.
To become a faceless spade wielder at the Cathedral Of Light. Sacrificing your individuality to The Leader.
Plenty of people spend their life in search of an angry parent. For others, of course.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
He wants to wreck the place, not annex it. Make sure it cannot function as a more prosperous, free and open society, populated by people they regard as Russians, right on the evil empire’s doorstep. And destroy its history and culture and beauty, while he’s about it.
There is one subtle detail in Putin's narrative, that may be difficult for a foreigner to detect or grasp. There is nothing "autistic" or "obsessive" about it. There is nothing even personal.
95% of it was a standard Russian History textbook for 13-15 years old
On the off-chance Mr. Ghedebrav is about, I did try messaging you but it seems not to be working. Anyway, here's a repost from yesterday morning:
sorry for the slow reply, was doing a spot of work. I'm homebrewing my own thing, though the setting's fairly straightforward, a mix of classic fantasy and Norse Scandinavia. Edited extra bit: while my first campaign, I've watched a lot of lore videos and related stuff so luckily I had a running start which has made things a little easier than they might be.
From GB News: The 51-year-old, who is the girlfriend of 71-year-old Peter Bone, is being shunned by ministers due to her relationship with Wellingborough’s disgraced former MP and dire nationwide polling.
Rishi Sunak last month refused to endorse Harrison's candidacy, instead highlighting how candidates are selected locally.
GB News understands that at least one Tory minister who was previously scheduled to canvas in Wellingborough has since removed the visit from his diary.
A Conservative source said: “There’s no value in being seen with the mistress of a disgraced MP. People have their own elections to worry about.”
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
He wants to wreck the place, not annex it. Make sure it cannot function as a more prosperous, free and open society, populated by people they regard as Russians, right on the evil empire’s doorstep. And destroy its history and culture and beauty, while he’s about it.
He wants to that and also annexe more than he has at the moment.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
I am right about the Carlson Putin interview. For a start, it is basically all you've talked about for the last 24 hours - along with Biden's infirmity
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It's hard to tell if it was deliberate to let Putin ramble on like that. I think Putin would have come out of it better with a shrill CNN journo tbh - his skill lies in smugly taking the piss out of people.
As an aside, I assume @Leon isn't here because the Putin interview bombed, and he's a bit embarassed.
It does seem to have backfired a bit, as Putin with his ludicrous "history" lesson comes across as unhinged. Great meme material, but maybe not the propaganda value they expected.
And the slightly bizarre panic about the interview itself.
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
I think Putin might have gotten more value out of a normal interview, where he could have shot back at the interviewer with provocative answers but would have been given less rope to hang himself. By being allowed to ramble on Putin has perfectly demonstrated how absurd the Russian revanchist position is.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
The history stuff matters a bit because that's why Putin invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense to anyone outside Russia and probably not to most people in Russia.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
A historian friend has suggested that Scotland hand Orkney back to Norway (was transferred in 1472 as a security for a dowry).
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
Doesn't Carlson come out of it badly because he is so obviously being played by Putin?
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
They both came out of it badly. A sycophant and a prattling despot.
This is just moronic. Carlson got what every journalist on the planet wanted. THE interview with Putin. Much of the professional criticism is envy - especially the stuff from CNN/BBC etc. You get idiots saying "Ugh he shouln't have done that, Putin is Hitler", then a moment later the same person says "We've been trying to get an interview with Putin for a year"
Comments
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsCI_gOG_ks
Van Buren in 1836 and George H Bush in 1988.
Two former Vice Presidents have also been elected president - Nixon in 1968 and Biden in 2020.
Every other Veep who became president did so due to the death (or in Ford's case, resignation) of the President.
There have, oddly, been more incumbent Secretaries of State elected president than there have Vice Presidents.
*prior to this, Adams and Jefferson succeeded from the vice-presidency to the presidency.
Honestly, it makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it. She considers herself to be of the left, but thinks Biden is evil. And if Buttigieg were to get the nod ahead of Harris, he'd be even worse.
Now, my friend is English and doesn't have a vote... but I suspect there are a substantial slice of similarly-confused people in the US who think similarly.
Primarily just to stop him whinging
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13066689/alien-metals-gold-treasures-thousands-years-ago.html
"This 3,000-year-old gold treasure found in Spain contains jewelry made with metals from 'beyond planet Earth', scientists say
A new analysis of the Treasure of Villena reveals some feature 'alien metals'
Scientists found two objects, a cap and bracelet, contained the metals
Read More: Tutankhamun dagger was also made from 'alien metals'"
No. I’m not going there. Apologies.
This whole desire to live under authoritarian strong-man rule sounds incredibly grim to me. It's what confuses me so much about @Leon - he claims to be some sort of modernist libertine, but has some sort of weird fascist kick-me-in-the-face fetish. Why?
I can remember when Saddam Insane or Daffy Duck (Libyan franchise), various Serbian warlords etc would do similar - put the Sgt. Pepper uniform away, put on a suit and try and do a “serious interview”.
It always ended up with a slightly fucked in the head monologue about their world view, IIRC.
@gabyhinsliff
·
3h
I didn’t think I wanted to watch a real life covid drama but having seen a preview of @doctor_oxford’s Breathtaking & interviewed her about it for @GraziaUK it turns out I was completely wrong (no change there then)
gabyhinsliff
@gabyhinsliff
·
54m
Funny you should say that. No spoilers etc but my first thought after watching first three episodes was that this changes the climate around the junior drs’ strike (more so now the next one is set for end Feb)
"The same lawyers also argued that the 14th amendment says people who engaged in an insurrection cannot “hold” office, but does not bar them from running for office. “But the point of running for office is to hold office!” Colbert exclaimed. “Unless you’re Nikki Haley – we’re not sure what her point is.”
https://x.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1755783598643523635?s=20
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1756043266804301881
Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure:
"The Kovalchuk clan sharply criticizes the idea of an interview with the American journalist Carlson. They say that the problem is the unpreparedness of the interview arrangement - it was Gromov's and Peskov's mistake. Putin should have talked about conservative values, the creation of a conservative alliance, and moving on - but he went into history and platitudes about Ukraine. Naryshkin, who allegedly planted ideas with documents of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi and nonsense with Poland, also played a negative role here. He set Putin up to the fullest. Medinsky would not allow such a thing."
According to reports, Putin didn't like Tucker Carlson - "a snob and a useful idiot who got a meaningful fee, but was lazy and lacked creativity."
Kovalchuk family believes they could have done better with Tucker Carlson, but "everything was wasted." There's a wave of complaints in the Kremlin.
On reddit even the subreddits that lean Trump/GOP/anti-Ukraine are poking fun at mad Vlad.
It occurs to me that it's a bit like an interrogation, you want the suspect to talk and talk.
After all, Tucker’s not short of a buck.
Eric Beightel, one of the Biden administration’s top infrastructure officials, worries that the ex-president’s return would be “catastrophic” for clean energy projects — especially offshore wind.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/08/trump-wind-power-crusade-00140128
Irridentism is always like that. Which is why it makes such good material for parodies.
I can’t honestly think of one of these guys who managed to sound vaguely normal at interview. I think Saddam came close a couple of times.
Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions.
Had this report been been subject to a normal DOJ review these remarks would undoubtedly have been excised.
https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1755829938140189179
(I suspect that Lloyd-George is the closest the UK has ever come towards dictatorship in the modern era, but thankfully events and his own conscience conspired against him.)
I’m used to it, and don’t begrudge the rate particularly.
And sheep were nervous, probably.
Better still would have been a John Simpson interview. I remember his Gaddafi one, with the farts. Utterly fruitloop.
The reaction to the Putin interview is fascinating. It is true he comes across as supremely confident, intelligent, clear. In times of instability these are qualities people want in a leader and the comparison with the west where we have a collective breakdown over a person being ‘misgendered’ even while the world around us is falling apart - is stark.
But even while of course there are things we do not know, we do know that his political rivals are made to disappear, minorities are persecuted, free discussion and debate is impossible in Putin’s Russia, he is an expansionist aggressor… and much more besides.
It is hard to avoid the feeling that those who are drawn to the qualities he does have would have been similarly awed by an interview with any number of history’s monsters.
But unless and until the West learns confidence in itself, resists interest groups that exploit our foundations of free speech and democracy in order to undermine those very same qualities, finds the strength to put the brakes on the managed chaos and middle we allow rival powers to export into young minds via highly sophisticated disruptive apps like TikTok, we will find the west increasingly turning to the ‘strong man’ alternative.
9:11 AM · Feb 9, 2024
·
314K
Views
https://x.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1755882214191976463?s=20
It’s about worshiping order. Trying to make the world linear. All nice and tidy, with lovely matching parades of well dressed soldiers all goose stepping together.
To become a faceless spade wielder at the Cathedral Of Light. Sacrificing your individuality to The Leader.
The grim reality is leaders who, despite being of well above average intelligence and education, blunder from one failure to the next, like Sunak. Once you can accept that that is the way the world is and you have to make the best of it you are on the way to calling yourself a Stoic.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
- Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947.
(Incidentally, I assume "middle" should have been "muddle": he typo'd)
(Incidentally2: how do you "manage chaos"?)
Surely Rachel Reeves qualifies now. Is she on the shortlist?
Considerably more complicated, so not everyone appreciates it.
The salary caps and draft system also make it more interesting.
Best stat for this game is that one quarterback is paid 68x what the other gets.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/08/brock-purdy-san-francisco-49ers-super-bowl
And if you must have someone kick your face, wouldn't you rather have Angela Rayner in her Irregular Choice, rather than some LKY-worshipping nerd wearing black polyester socks and cheap "designer" trainers?
Er, perhaps I'm overthinking this...
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/crosstabs_Biden_and_Trump_Issue_Handling_20240209.pdf
Saved only by a certain Major Attlee, the penultimate person off beach during the final evacuation of the Gallipoli campaign in 1916. He knew all about Churchill's weaknesses, and was perfectly placed to keep him in check thereafter.
Er, especially since from just 20 years after that, lasting for 400-ish years, the dominant driver of "Russian" history was, um, the Kyivan Rus...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13067355/Jewish-university-chaplain-forced-hiding-receiving-hundreds-death-threats-against-family-role-IDF-reservist.html
(I spent several years living off Burley Rd. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the more nutty types I knew then would involve themselves in such a thing, but the Daily Mail demeans themselves by getting so many basic facts wrong)
They should elect a female President when she is the best candidate for the job - not a day sooner or later. Favouring people as representatives of their gender, race, or similar for the most important job in the world is ridiculous, no matter how much white male guilt it assauges.
On the other complaining about things being political hit jobs is exactly what Trump is doing, it gives cover to his endless victimhood.
The most important and clear takeaway from the interview is that Putin is not nearly done with Ukraine. He wants to control the country ("de Nazify" it) and he wants to take more Ukrainian territory for Russia.
Those urging Ukraine to settle with Russia need to explain how it's going to stop Russia carrying on with its annexation.
The interview has just made him look silly. Remarkably, Carlson has come out quite well with his weird expressions and patience.
If you see what I mean….
There is one subtle detail in Putin's narrative, that may be difficult for a foreigner to detect or grasp. There is nothing "autistic" or "obsessive" about it. There is nothing even personal.
95% of it was a standard Russian History textbook for 13-15 years old
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1756091654262477152
On the off-chance Mr. Ghedebrav is about, I did try messaging you but it seems not to be working. Anyway, here's a repost from yesterday morning:
sorry for the slow reply, was doing a spot of work. I'm homebrewing my own thing, though the setting's fairly straightforward, a mix of classic fantasy and Norse Scandinavia.
Edited extra bit: while my first campaign, I've watched a lot of lore videos and related stuff so luckily I had a running start which has made things a little easier than they might be.
Rishi Sunak last month refused to endorse Harrison's candidacy, instead highlighting how candidates are selected locally.
GB News understands that at least one Tory minister who was previously scheduled to canvas in Wellingborough has since removed the visit from his diary.
A Conservative source said: “There’s no value in being seen with the mistress of a disgraced MP. People have their own elections to worry about.”
168 million views, and rising
He supped with the devil but forgot to take a long spoon.
It is also what the world is talking about, it was and sometimes still is headline news from China to France to Spain to the USA. And the UK. Go check
It is dominating discourse, which is presumably what Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk wanted, and they have dashingly achieved that. You can revile the decision to interview a horrible dictator, that's fair - but it is unquestionably a media triumph, in its own terms. Nor is it mere sycophancy, some of Putin's people are saying it has backfired, they don't like it. So Carlson did not simply serve up what the Leader wanted
I do not remembr one political interview like this, causing such a stir. Frost/Nixon was big but the world was so much smaller, I doubt the Chinese or Indians gave a fuck about it. Also I am sure that if you add together all the people that will see some of it, it will EASILY be the most watched political interview of all time. Tho only 0.01% of them will watch the entire thing - it's more than two hours long, and the first hour is DULL
The last half hour is weird and compelling. Tucker asks him about God