One reason bbc might want Farage on the telly. He’s far more popular than all the other parties combined. With da yoot
“Farage is absolutely killing it on TikTok. So many fan edits of him, and his actual account has 662k followers, more than double the combined total for Labour (198k), Tories (61k), Greens (40k), and LibDems (21k).
For me that would be a red line. I am bracing myself to vote Tory but I will not vote for Reform or anyone who does a deal with them.
Yes, about a third of those Tory voters and members still remaining like you would go LD if any deal or merger with Reform, though the majority would join up with Farage's party.
Reform would though also add a few of the white working class Leave voters they have been picking up from Labour who never voted Tory before Boris and likely never would again
One interesting question for post election is about the future of the LDs. Their activists have always been quite left wing, but if they elect a bunch of new MPs in blue wall seats then those MPs could well be centrist, if not slightly centre-right. If the Tories suffer an ELE, we could also see a split where councillors and activitsts on the right go to Reform, while the centrists move to LD.
If the Tories go Faragist, I could see Cameron joining the LibDems
I mean it makes sense. Broadly speaking you can split the Tories into either Reform types or those that would be pretty much at home in the Lib Dems. With Starmer hovering up the rest of the centre ground, that pretty much gives 80% of the former Tory base a home.
And I think part of this is why the Tories are struggling - there’s a ‘better version’ of them whichever way you turn. If they can’t rely on “Only we or Labour can win” then they sort of have nothing else going for them!
I think the idea that "you can split the Tories into either Reform types or those that would be pretty much at home in the Lib Dems" is complete and utter balderdash. There is a broad range of opinion in the Conservative Party, and it's a continuum, not a bimodal distribution.
I'd suggest there are at least 50 MPs in the Tory party closer in policy to Keir Starmer than Patel and Braverman and another 50 closer to Ed Davey. Yet they (nearly) all stick to the rosette in some weird loyalty ritual.
Afternoon all. Long time lurker, first time poster! Interesting bbc interview from Wes Streeting today on the number of undecided voters and the danger of complacency.
For Labour to be assured of a majority, they really need to combat the "super majority" talk:
“I don’t believe the opinion polls for a moment," Streeting says.
“I think what the Conservative Party is doing, quite cynically at the moment, is to say to people ‘if you want change, you don’t have to bother going out and voting for it, you can put your feet up, or you can vote for one of the smaller parties and their wish list of promises, because Labour’s going to win anyway’," Streeting adds.
Welcome rkelk! But I don't agree. Labour's majority is nailed on no matter how complacent its voters get, because their principle rivals i.e. the Tories are so far behind. Lab could easily get a 100+ seat majority with only one third of tge popular vote. What matters in FPTP is how far first is ahead of second.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
George Soros is very political; the groups he funds have political objectives - that's not a value-judgement, it's a bald statement of fact. Does his (apparent) Jewish background mean his political advocacy must not be debated and discussed? That would make his actions immune from criticism or simple discussion.
But there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between what Soros funds and what MAGA types (or Fidesz types) say he funds.
Very possibly, but the cure for liars isn't banning the discussion - that's grist to their mill.
Blocking liars from saying things or having an audience is a very effective way of reducing the number of lies that get heard. Fining liars large sums of money also works.
Numerous studies have shown that blocking conspiracy theory content on social media leads to fewer people believing in those conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theorists moan about it and say there's a conspiracy against them, but it works.
In the US, the evolution of a large right-wing world of media that pumps out lie after lie has been associated with the rise of US politicians who constantly lie.
People like you got the “lab leak hypothesis” silenced for a year on social media
How did that work out? Was that good for the world? Twat
One reason bbc might want Farage on the telly. He’s far more popular than all the other parties combined. With da yoot
“Farage is absolutely killing it on TikTok. So many fan edits of him, and his actual account has 662k followers, more than double the combined total for Labour (198k), Tories (61k), Greens (40k), and LibDems (21k).
Odds on chants of Ooooh Nigel Farage chants at Glastonbury?
He’s still going to be more popular there than Coldplay.
Well...
Super Hans is never wrong.
Comedy is nowhere near as it was back then. So many iconic saying from Peep Show, Inbetweeners, Office, Phoenix Nights, IT Crowd, Thick of It to name a few.
What you are (Sunak), is an Omnishambles...You are like one of those coffee machines, from Bean to Cup, you f##k up.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It was quite common during the Brexit era for certain Remainers to salivate about how the Irish lobby in the US would ensure Britain was put in its place. They weren't accused of stirring up hibernophobia.
They were also, as it turned out, correct!
Bullshit. There being no "Irish lobby" in the USA worth mentioning this millennium.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The metals market has always been a little wild west.
At this point, any one who DOESN’T suspect China must seriously lack mental agility. Ah, I see the problem
“Boeing's problems have become an opportunity for China's plane manufacturer COMAC is looking to pass both Boeing and Airbus in the international market”
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
It rather suggests that whatever work they should have been doing wasn't that important if they could run mouse jugglers and it was only after tracking that did the bosses work out they were doing bugger all work.
I think it is mouse jiggling rather than mouse juggling.
It would require mice plural to be juggling. And probably requires more attention than they would ever give to their work.
As a Labour chap, I have to say that I find talk of the demise of the Tory Party to be both hyperbolic and distinctly premature, whatever the outcome on July 4.
The Tory Party will still be going strong when Nigel Farage is living out the end of his days in a care home in Kent (not Clacton) humming 'Rule Britannia' between sips of warm beer.
Given it seems to be mainly Rancid Right types who are salivating about the Cons being obliterated I find myself rooting for it not to happen.
400/425 Labour seats, 50ish LDs, zero Reform will do me nicely thanks.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
It rather suggests that whatever work they should have been doing wasn't that important if they could run mouse jugglers and it was only after tracking that did the bosses work out they were doing bugger all work.
I think it is mouse jiggling rather than mouse juggling.
It would require mice plural to be juggling. And probably requires more attention than they would ever give to their work.
Obviously it was a typo.
Although there have been stories of some people doing mouse juggling, where because of remote work, they have got themselves multiple jobs at the same time.
LOL, so the German carmakers don’t even want the tariffs, because China is their largest export market and they fear retaliation.
The story I've heard is that the Chinese retaliation would be to massively tariff *export* of batteries to those tariffing their cars. Since the German manufacturers are heavily dependent on Chinese batteries....
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It was quite common during the Brexit era for certain Remainers to salivate about how the Irish lobby in the US would ensure Britain was put in its place. They weren't accused of stirring up hibernophobia.
They were also, as it turned out, correct!
Bullshit. There being no "Irish lobby" in the USA worth mentioning this millennium.
Isn't there a prominent member if it in The White House? Or did I imagine him coming to Britain to stop us jerking around and give 'the black and tans' a good hiding?
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
Confirms Starmer is likely to have a short honeymoon as PM
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
I wouldn’t include the nationalist or NI parties, voting in England as I am.
Changing the subject somewhat, I see that Donald Trump has proposed making income from tips tax free.
I have a couple of thoughts on this:
Firstly, if I was a service employee highly dependent on tips (waiters/waitresses, hairdressers, etc.) I would be extremely keen on this. As a policy it could be a real vote winner.
Secondly, on the face of it, this is a measure that will benefit lower income workers, which I applaud.
Thirdly, this does violate Smithson's rule of economic fairness: i.e. all work should be taxed similarly. Why should a metalworker earning $25/hour be taxed at 30%, while a waitress earning the same is taxed at just 10%.
Fourth, the biggest beneficiaries (financially) from this will be serving staff in high end restaurants and bars in New York / LA, who already earn (relatively speaking) a lot.
Fifth, this will further encourage the (incredibly annoying) tippification of the US. My grocery store prompts me to tip, and a I filled my bloody bag myself, why would I pay 20% on a $150 grocery bill for someone scanning some barcodes?.
Sixth (and this is my big objection), this is an absolute boon for corruption: almost everything can now be classified as a "tip", and that means no need to pay taxes or keep records.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It was quite common during the Brexit era for certain Remainers to salivate about how the Irish lobby in the US would ensure Britain was put in its place. They weren't accused of stirring up hibernophobia.
They were also, as it turned out, correct!
Bullshit. There being no "Irish lobby" in the USA worth mentioning this millennium.
Changing the subject somewhat, I see that Donald Trump has proposed making income from tips tax free.
I have a couple of thoughts on this:
Firstly, if I was a service employee highly dependent on tips (waiters/waitresses, hairdressers, etc.) I would be extremely keen on this. As a policy it could be a real vote winner.
Secondly, on the face of it, this is a measure that will benefit lower income workers, which I applaud.
Thirdly, this does violate Smithson's rule of economic fairness: i.e. all work should be taxed similarly. Why should a metalworker earning $25/hour be taxed at 30%, while a waitress earning the same is taxed at just 10%.
Fourth, the biggest beneficiaries (financially) from this will be serving staff in high end restaurants and bars in New York / LA, who already earn (relatively speaking) a lot.
Fifth, this will further encourage the (incredibly annoying) tippification of the US. My grocery store prompts me to tip, and a I filled my bloody bag myself, why would I pay 20% on a $150 grocery bill for someone scanning some barcodes?.
Sixth (and this is my big objection), this is an absolute boon for corruption: almost everything can now be classified as a "tip", and that means no need to pay taxes or keep records.
I wonder which of those is most attractive to Trump....
At some point surely the tippification of US has to collapse on itself. It absolutely ridiculous.
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
Every leader's approval is in the toilet because wages have risen slower than incomes in the last three years because of inflation caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Getting elected leader after the worst of this (Meloni) is a boon, as you don't get the bulk of the blame.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It was quite common during the Brexit era for certain Remainers to salivate about how the Irish lobby in the US would ensure Britain was put in its place. They weren't accused of stirring up hibernophobia.
They were also, as it turned out, correct!
Bullshit. There being no "Irish lobby" in the USA worth mentioning this millennium.
A little helper for criticising Jewish people is to think about whether pointing out the fact that they're Jewish adds anything useful. A mild and entirely manufactured example to avoid particular controversies:
"Wolves win away after Newcastle player is sent off for scything down Diogo Jota" "Wolves win away after Jewish Newcastle player is sent off for scything down Diogo Jota"
Both statements are true. But pointing out the fact that the player is Jewish would be very odd indeed, and very likely to be motivated anti-semism. It's hard to explain why the writer would put that in when they would never normally bother with that kind of detail.
And this touches on a point I'm constantly making: you can be entirely truthful and up to mischief. Not just in the language you use, but in the things you choose to talk about. Someone who constantly trawls for naughty things done by only one group of people is clearly motivated by hatred of that group. Sometimes that's political, sometimes it's racist. It is very hard to pin the charge on them, because "they're only telling the truth". But we don't always need to prove it to know. When someone is smirking behind their semi-plausible deniability, we know.
Changing the subject somewhat, I see that Donald Trump has proposed making income from tips tax free.
I have a couple of thoughts on this:
Firstly, if I was a service employee highly dependent on tips (waiters/waitresses, hairdressers, etc.) I would be extremely keen on this. As a policy it could be a real vote winner.
Secondly, on the face of it, this is a measure that will benefit lower income workers, which I applaud.
Thirdly, this does violate Smithson's rule of economic fairness: i.e. all work should be taxed similarly. Why should a metalworker earning $25/hour be taxed at 30%, while a waitress earning the same is taxed at just 10%.
Fourth, the biggest beneficiaries (financially) from this will be serving staff in high end restaurants and bars in New York / LA, who already earn (relatively speaking) a lot.
Fifth, this will further encourage the (incredibly annoying) tippification of the US. My grocery store prompts me to tip, and a I filled my bloody bag myself, why would I pay 20% on a $150 grocery bill for someone scanning some barcodes?.
Sixth (and this is my big objection), this is an absolute boon for corruption: almost everything can now be classified as a "tip", and that means no need to pay taxes or keep records.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
George Soros is very political; the groups he funds have political objectives - that's not a value-judgement, it's a bald statement of fact. Does his (apparent) Jewish background mean his political advocacy must not be debated and discussed? That would make his actions immune from criticism or simple discussion.
But there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between what Soros funds and what MAGA types (or Fidesz types) say he funds.
Very possibly, but the cure for liars isn't banning the discussion - that's grist to their mill.
Blocking liars from saying things or having an audience is a very effective way of reducing the number of lies that get heard. Fining liars large sums of money also works.
Numerous studies have shown that blocking conspiracy theory content on social media leads to fewer people believing in those conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theorists moan about it and say there's a conspiracy against them, but it works.
In the US, the evolution of a large right-wing world of media that pumps out lie after lie has been associated with the rise of US politicians who constantly lie.
Yep. It's like pollution. A certain amount is inevitable but you want to restrict it not facilitate it.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The metals market has always been a little wild west.
At this point, any one who DOESN’T suspect China must seriously lack mental agility. Ah, I see the problem
“Boeing's problems have become an opportunity for China's plane manufacturer COMAC is looking to pass both Boeing and Airbus in the international market”
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
If @Leon knew about aviation, he'd remember this one
"The origins of the crash disk are uncertain because of significant irregularities and gaps, noted in the NTSB report, in the manufacturing records of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and its suppliers.[1]: 80 Records found after the accident indicated that two rough-machined forgings having the serial number of the crash disk had been routed through GEAE manufacturing. Records indicated that Alcoa supplied GE with TIMET titanium forgings for one disk with the serial number of the crash disk. Some records show that this disk "was rejected for an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication", that an outside laboratory performed an ultrasound inspection of this disk, that this disk was subsequently returned to GE, and that this disk should have been scrapped. The FAA report stated, "There is no record of warranty claim by GEAE for defective material and no record of any credit for GEAE processed by Alcoa or TIMET".[1]: 53–55
GE records of the second disk having the serial number of the crash disk indicate that it was made with an RMI Titanium Company titanium billet supplied by Alcoa. Research of GE's records showed no other titanium parts were manufactured at GE from this RMI titanium billet during the period of 1969 to 1990. GE records indicate that final finishing and inspection of the crash disk were completed on December 11, 1971. Alcoa records indicate that this RMI titanium billet was first cut in 1972 and that all forgings made from this material were for airframe parts.[1]: 55 If the Alcoa records were accurate, the RMI titanium could not have been used to manufacture the crash disk, indicating that the initially rejected TIMET disk with "an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication" was the crash disk."
Which is a remarkably quiet way of saying fraudulent paperwork.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
2m extra expats eligible to vote this time. Polling error? Have they heard of reform? If they vote SDP do they think they are getting the Alliance?
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
I wouldn’t include the nationalist or NI parties, voting in England as I am.
So for me probably:
1. Green 2. Labour 3. LD 4. Con 5. WPGB 6. Reform
4-6 fall a long way behind NOTA/DNV though.
I included the nationalist and NI ones on the basis it was useful to benchmark against the GB wide parties, so without those I am:
1. LD 2. Lab 3. Green 4. Con 5. Reform 6. WPGB
I think Farage is dangerous but I find Galloway more so (and even more irritating).
Afternoon all. Long time lurker, first time poster! Interesting bbc interview from Wes Streeting today on the number of undecided voters and the danger of complacency.
For Labour to be assured of a majority, they really need to combat the "super majority" talk:
“I don’t believe the opinion polls for a moment," Streeting says.
“I think what the Conservative Party is doing, quite cynically at the moment, is to say to people ‘if you want change, you don’t have to bother going out and voting for it, you can put your feet up, or you can vote for one of the smaller parties and their wish list of promises, because Labour’s going to win anyway’," Streeting adds.
Welcome to posting!
I do wonder if any of this had much effect. I'd have thought that it would be incredibly difficult to direct this kind of message strictly at the people you want it to impact.
By suggesting the election is over, the Tories may be as likely to get people switching to Reform, or even just staying at home.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
It's a matter of record that he has a speech impediment. Really his time was 30 years ago, not sure that either candidate is showing that much evidence of cognitive decline, Biden still appears sharp at big events and how could you tell with Trump, he's always rambled.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The metals market has always been a little wild west.
At this point, any one who DOESN’T suspect China must seriously lack mental agility. Ah, I see the problem
“Boeing's problems have become an opportunity for China's plane manufacturer COMAC is looking to pass both Boeing and Airbus in the international market”
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
If @Leon knew about aviation, he'd remember this one
"The origins of the crash disk are uncertain because of significant irregularities and gaps, noted in the NTSB report, in the manufacturing records of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and its suppliers.[1]: 80 Records found after the accident indicated that two rough-machined forgings having the serial number of the crash disk had been routed through GEAE manufacturing. Records indicated that Alcoa supplied GE with TIMET titanium forgings for one disk with the serial number of the crash disk. Some records show that this disk "was rejected for an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication", that an outside laboratory performed an ultrasound inspection of this disk, that this disk was subsequently returned to GE, and that this disk should have been scrapped. The FAA report stated, "There is no record of warranty claim by GEAE for defective material and no record of any credit for GEAE processed by Alcoa or TIMET".[1]: 53–55
GE records of the second disk having the serial number of the crash disk indicate that it was made with an RMI Titanium Company titanium billet supplied by Alcoa. Research of GE's records showed no other titanium parts were manufactured at GE from this RMI titanium billet during the period of 1969 to 1990. GE records indicate that final finishing and inspection of the crash disk were completed on December 11, 1971. Alcoa records indicate that this RMI titanium billet was first cut in 1972 and that all forgings made from this material were for airframe parts.[1]: 55 If the Alcoa records were accurate, the RMI titanium could not have been used to manufacture the crash disk, indicating that the initially rejected TIMET disk with "an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication" was the crash disk."
Which is a remarkably quiet way of saying fraudulent paperwork.
The aviation industry is having a nightmare with fake parts, and has done for a few years now. Almost all of the fakes are originating from China.
There were a bunch picked up in the sandpit a few months ago, after customs wondered why ‘new’ parts for Western planes were originating from China and heading to Africa.
I would suspect that many other industries are suffering from the same issues, but aviation is much more open about publicising their problems.
A little helper for criticising Jewish people is to think about whether pointing out the fact that they're Jewish adds anything useful. A mild and entirely manufactured example to avoid particular controversies:
"Wolves win away after Newcastle player is sent off for scything down Diogo Jota" "Wolves win away after Jewish Newcastle player is sent off for scything down Diogo Jota"
Both statements are true. But pointing out the fact that the player is Jewish would be very odd indeed, and very likely to be motivated anti-semism. It's hard to explain why the writer would put that in when they would never normally bother with that kind of detail.
And this touches on a point I'm constantly making: you can be entirely truthful and up to mischief. Not just in the language you use, but in the things you choose to talk about. Someone who constantly trawls for naughty things done by only one group of people is clearly motivated by hatred of that group. Sometimes that's political, sometimes it's racist. It is very hard to pin the charge on them, because "they're only telling the truth". But we don't always need to prove it to know. When someone is smirking behind their semi-plausible deniability, we know.
If there's one thing I hate, it's "anti-semism", apparently 🙄
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
Ha! Great question!
1. LAB 2. LIB 3. SDL 4. ANI 5. SNP 6. PLC 7. GRN 8. CON 9. SFN 10. UUP 11. REF 12. DUP 13. WGB
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The metals market has always been a little wild west.
At this point, any one who DOESN’T suspect China must seriously lack mental agility. Ah, I see the problem
“Boeing's problems have become an opportunity for China's plane manufacturer COMAC is looking to pass both Boeing and Airbus in the international market”
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
If @Leon knew about aviation, he'd remember this one
"The origins of the crash disk are uncertain because of significant irregularities and gaps, noted in the NTSB report, in the manufacturing records of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and its suppliers.[1]: 80 Records found after the accident indicated that two rough-machined forgings having the serial number of the crash disk had been routed through GEAE manufacturing. Records indicated that Alcoa supplied GE with TIMET titanium forgings for one disk with the serial number of the crash disk. Some records show that this disk "was rejected for an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication", that an outside laboratory performed an ultrasound inspection of this disk, that this disk was subsequently returned to GE, and that this disk should have been scrapped. The FAA report stated, "There is no record of warranty claim by GEAE for defective material and no record of any credit for GEAE processed by Alcoa or TIMET".[1]: 53–55
GE records of the second disk having the serial number of the crash disk indicate that it was made with an RMI Titanium Company titanium billet supplied by Alcoa. Research of GE's records showed no other titanium parts were manufactured at GE from this RMI titanium billet during the period of 1969 to 1990. GE records indicate that final finishing and inspection of the crash disk were completed on December 11, 1971. Alcoa records indicate that this RMI titanium billet was first cut in 1972 and that all forgings made from this material were for airframe parts.[1]: 55 If the Alcoa records were accurate, the RMI titanium could not have been used to manufacture the crash disk, indicating that the initially rejected TIMET disk with "an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication" was the crash disk."
Which is a remarkably quiet way of saying fraudulent paperwork.
The aviation industry is having a nightmare with fake parts, and has done for a few years now. Almost all of the fakes are originating from China.
There were a bunch picked up in the sandpit a few months ago, after customs wondered why ‘new’ parts for Western planes were originating from China and heading to Africa.
I would suspect that many other industries are suffering from the same issues, but aviation is much more open about publicising their problems.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
I wouldn’t include the nationalist or NI parties, voting in England as I am.
So for me probably:
1. Green 2. Labour 3. LD 4. Con 5. WPGB 6. Reform
4-6 fall a long way behind NOTA/DNV though.
I included the nationalist and NI ones on the basis it was useful to benchmark against the GB wide parties, so without those I am:
1. LD 2. Lab 3. Green 4. Con 5. Reform 6. WPGB
I think Farage is dangerous but I find Galloway more so (and even more irritating).
1. (Anyone who will beat the Conservatives where I am) 2. Conservatives 3. Reform (94 various methods of self-mutilation or ritual suicide) 98. The Communists 99. The Nazis 100. Any religious parties
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
Overseas voters are allowed.
Yes, I know that, we talked about it the other day.
It was more the "local" candidate claim made me wonder if he had relocated back to the UK after he went off in a quite a public huff to I think St Nevis. Or could just be bad journalism.
Viral metagenome reveals microbial hosts and the associated antibiotic resistome on microplastics https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-024-00249-y Microplastics provide a unique niche for viruses, promoting viral interactions with hosts and accelerating the rapid ‘horizontal’ spread of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Currently, however, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the main drivers for viral distribution on microplastics and on the resulting patterns of viral biogeographic distributions and the spread of the associated ARGs. Here we performed metagenomic and virus enrichment-based viromic sequencings on both polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics along a river. Experimental results show that Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Cyanobacteria were the potential hosts of viruses on microplastics, but only approximately 4.1% of viral variations were associated with a bacterial community. Notably, two shared ARGs and six metal resistance genes were identified in both viral and their host bacterial genomes, indicating the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer between viruses and bacteria. Furthermore, microplastics introduce more distinctive elements to viral ecology, fostering viral diversification and virus–host linkage while refraining from an escalated level of horizontal gene transfer of ARGs in contrast to natural matrixes. Our study provides comprehensive profiles of viral communities, virus-related ARGs and their driving factors on microplastics, highlighting how these anthropogenic niches provide unique interfaces that comprise highly defined viral ecological features in the environment.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
Great question!
1. Labour 2. SDLP 3. Green 4. SNP 5. Sinn Fein 6. Plaid 7. APNI 8. Lib Dems 9. WPGB 10. UUP 11. Conservatives 12. DUP 13. Reform.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
Solve the whole thing by making donation limits £1000 or in the US $2000 per person or organisation per year. If they want to donate beyond that they can do so with time rather than cash.
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
It's a matter of record that he has a speech impediment. Really his time was 30 years ago, not sure that either candidate is showing that much evidence of cognitive decline, Biden still appears sharp at big events and how could you tell with Trump, he's always rambled.
With Joe it's the physical frailty I notice. His so called senility is more Trumpist talking point than anything else imo.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The metals market has always been a little wild west.
At this point, any one who DOESN’T suspect China must seriously lack mental agility. Ah, I see the problem
“Boeing's problems have become an opportunity for China's plane manufacturer COMAC is looking to pass both Boeing and Airbus in the international market”
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
If @Leon knew about aviation, he'd remember this one
"The origins of the crash disk are uncertain because of significant irregularities and gaps, noted in the NTSB report, in the manufacturing records of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and its suppliers.[1]: 80 Records found after the accident indicated that two rough-machined forgings having the serial number of the crash disk had been routed through GEAE manufacturing. Records indicated that Alcoa supplied GE with TIMET titanium forgings for one disk with the serial number of the crash disk. Some records show that this disk "was rejected for an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication", that an outside laboratory performed an ultrasound inspection of this disk, that this disk was subsequently returned to GE, and that this disk should have been scrapped. The FAA report stated, "There is no record of warranty claim by GEAE for defective material and no record of any credit for GEAE processed by Alcoa or TIMET".[1]: 53–55
GE records of the second disk having the serial number of the crash disk indicate that it was made with an RMI Titanium Company titanium billet supplied by Alcoa. Research of GE's records showed no other titanium parts were manufactured at GE from this RMI titanium billet during the period of 1969 to 1990. GE records indicate that final finishing and inspection of the crash disk were completed on December 11, 1971. Alcoa records indicate that this RMI titanium billet was first cut in 1972 and that all forgings made from this material were for airframe parts.[1]: 55 If the Alcoa records were accurate, the RMI titanium could not have been used to manufacture the crash disk, indicating that the initially rejected TIMET disk with "an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication" was the crash disk."
Which is a remarkably quiet way of saying fraudulent paperwork.
The aviation industry is having a nightmare with fake parts, and has done for a few years now. Almost all of the fakes are originating from China.
There were a bunch picked up in the sandpit a few months ago, after customs wondered why ‘new’ parts for Western planes were originating from China and heading to Africa.
I would suspect that many other industries are suffering from the same issues, but aviation is much more open about publicising their problems.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
Solve the whole thing by making donation limits £1000 or in the US $2000 per person or organisation per year. If they want to donate beyond that they can do so with time rather than cash.
One reason bbc might want Farage on the telly. He’s far more popular than all the other parties combined. With da yoot
“Farage is absolutely killing it on TikTok. So many fan edits of him, and his actual account has 662k followers, more than double the combined total for Labour (198k), Tories (61k), Greens (40k), and LibDems (21k).
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
It's a matter of record that he has a speech impediment. Really his time was 30 years ago, not sure that either candidate is showing that much evidence of cognitive decline, Biden still appears sharp at big events and how could you tell with Trump, he's always rambled.
With Joe it's the physical frailty I notice. His so called senility is more Trumpist talking point than anything else imo.
I think the times he goes hhhmhmhnmegendmngsdfgndfgnnm can be put down to speech impediment.
However in the past year in particular, he is constantly mixing up countries, their leaders, and even claiming dead people are still leader of a particular country. And does so in a manner where he doesn't then go, oh sorry, I misspoke, I actually meant....And these aren't well I mixed up Turkmenistan with Tajikistan (this is the stuff Trump gets wrong because he is ignorant and doesn't read briefings). Biden is mixing up Iraq and Ukraine.
Then there is the weird behaviour being lost on stage, wandering off, going to shake somebodies hand again less than 30s after they just did.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The metals market has always been a little wild west.
At this point, any one who DOESN’T suspect China must seriously lack mental agility. Ah, I see the problem
“Boeing's problems have become an opportunity for China's plane manufacturer COMAC is looking to pass both Boeing and Airbus in the international market”
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
If @Leon knew about aviation, he'd remember this one
"The origins of the crash disk are uncertain because of significant irregularities and gaps, noted in the NTSB report, in the manufacturing records of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and its suppliers.[1]: 80 Records found after the accident indicated that two rough-machined forgings having the serial number of the crash disk had been routed through GEAE manufacturing. Records indicated that Alcoa supplied GE with TIMET titanium forgings for one disk with the serial number of the crash disk. Some records show that this disk "was rejected for an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication", that an outside laboratory performed an ultrasound inspection of this disk, that this disk was subsequently returned to GE, and that this disk should have been scrapped. The FAA report stated, "There is no record of warranty claim by GEAE for defective material and no record of any credit for GEAE processed by Alcoa or TIMET".[1]: 53–55
GE records of the second disk having the serial number of the crash disk indicate that it was made with an RMI Titanium Company titanium billet supplied by Alcoa. Research of GE's records showed no other titanium parts were manufactured at GE from this RMI titanium billet during the period of 1969 to 1990. GE records indicate that final finishing and inspection of the crash disk were completed on December 11, 1971. Alcoa records indicate that this RMI titanium billet was first cut in 1972 and that all forgings made from this material were for airframe parts.[1]: 55 If the Alcoa records were accurate, the RMI titanium could not have been used to manufacture the crash disk, indicating that the initially rejected TIMET disk with "an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication" was the crash disk."
Which is a remarkably quiet way of saying fraudulent paperwork.
The aviation industry is having a nightmare with fake parts, and has done for a few years now. Almost all of the fakes are originating from China.
There were a bunch picked up in the sandpit a few months ago, after customs wondered why ‘new’ parts for Western planes were originating from China and heading to Africa.
I would suspect that many other industries are suffering from the same issues, but aviation is much more open about publicising their problems.
Take a simple bolt. Say an M8 stainless. Pennies for the regular hardware store one. Aviation grade, with all the certifications?
Better markup than selling hard drugs.
The rule of thumb used to be two orders of magnitude.
Nut and bolt from B&Q. £1 for 10.
Same nut and bolt, for an aeroplane, with the EASA Form 1*. £10 for 1.
(*For those who don’t know, the paperwork includes information about the composition of the part, its dimensions and tested strength, the factory and batch number, and can be used to recall faulty parts in future. Yes, every nut and bolt on an aeroplane is individually certified).
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
I find the rump SDP a very bizarre outfit, but they remind me of some very funny electoral broadcasts I think from the rump Liberal Party, sometime not long after the merger.
They had the production values of what looked like 1980s Open University broadcasts, but with a sweaty bald man sitting in a study armchair, expounding on the history of liberalism against the backdrop of some bookcases. They were very quaintly earnest, by today's standard.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
I wouldn’t include the nationalist or NI parties, voting in England as I am.
So for me probably:
1. Green 2. Labour 3. LD 4. Con 5. WPGB 6. Reform
4-6 fall a long way behind NOTA/DNV though.
I included the nationalist and NI ones on the basis it was useful to benchmark against the GB wide parties, so without those I am:
1. LD 2. Lab 3. Green 4. Con 5. Reform 6. WPGB
I think Farage is dangerous but I find Galloway more so (and even more irritating).
To turn their trademark triteness back on them, Farage and Galloway are Two Cheeks of the Same Backside.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Found it: it was not actually the Soros Foundation that gave money, but Soros Fund Mangement, and this electoral cycle it was...
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Found it: it was not actually the Soros Foundation that gave money, but Soros Fund Mangement, and this electoral cycle it was...
Sorry: it's even more removed from Soros than you might think. That was $11,000 from individuals who worked for Soros Fund Management. So it literally might just be a couple of lawyers who turned up to a $5,000 a head dinner and paid for it with their own money.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Shall we follow the money?
I will be prepared to bet, if you like, that the PAC will take lots of donations, and that Soros will be a relatively small proprtion of it.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
I've just noticed something watching that clip. Close your eyes and listen to Farage speak. Ignore the words, just focus on the voice. He sounds exactly like Steve Coogan.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Shall we follow the money?
I will be prepared to bet, if you like, that the PAC will take lots of donations, and that Soros will be a relatively small proprtion of it.
So the AP says that Soros donated $321,000 to a PAC promoting Alicia Walton in Arkansas.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
In the recent local elections here I had the ability to rank 11 candidates, but in the end I stopped at preference number 3.
I decided that my refusal to transfer my vote any further would send a stronger signal than trying to distinguish between the many and various flavours of candidate I disagreed with strongly.
As it turned out, none of the candidates I gave a preference to were elected in the 4-seat local electoral area, which is fairly indicative of the relatively fringe nature of my views, and the candidate I was probably most opposed to was the first to reach the quota on count 3, so any attempt to use my lower preferences to vote against him would have been futile.
The Labour Party raised £351,990 more in donations than the Conservatives in the first week of the general election campaign, according to the Electoral Commission.
Labour raised £926,908, followed by the Conservatives on £574,918, and Liberal Democrats with £454,999. The Scottish National Party raised £36,305 and Reform UK £140,000.
Here's a comparison that makes Biden look relatively good. Relatively. "Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker." source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
Confirms Starmer is likely to have a short honeymoon as PM
That doesn't necessarily follow. Arguably, those poor ratings are about inflation. Starmer comes in, inflation is now lower, what happened in the past is Sunak's responsibility not his. There's no inherent reason his honeymoon should be too short.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
The Labour Party raised £351,990 more in donations than the Conservatives in the first week of the general election campaign, according to the Electoral Commission.
Labour raised £926,908, followed by the Conservatives on £574,918, and Liberal Democrats with £454,999. The Scottish National Party raised £36,305 and Reform UK £140,000.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
The Labour Party raised £351,990 more in donations than the Conservatives in the first week of the general election campaign, according to the Electoral Commission.
Labour raised £926,908, followed by the Conservatives on £574,918, and Liberal Democrats with £454,999. The Scottish National Party raised £36,305 and Reform UK £140,000.
Another match in the cricket WC delayed by rain. Between the absolutely terrible pitch in NY and all the rain interruptions, not about as well as the Tory GE campaign.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I propose a new PB rule: LEON IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING (usually a year ahead of everyone else) APART LIZ TRUSS AND WHAT3WORDS
That's more likely plain fraud, not sabotage. The companies sabotaged themselves by trying to cut corners.
As usual, you look for the more complicated explanation (classic midwit behaviour, to borrow the term you learned from your Twitter followings).
But, I’m right
I really do get an extraordinary number of long distance predictions exactly right and, to be polite, you never ever do
...
@Leon would love his right-wing conspiracy theories to be proven but it’s the usual tripe from him, as per these ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ridiculous comments about Great Saviour Liz TRUSS
A small percentage of young people may push right and equally a percentage will not. What does that thunderbrick do? He latches onto the small percentage as proof he’s right.
My view on Biden is that I don't care if he actually somewhat senile. If he remains the person who can most reliably beat Trump, the one who has beaten Trump, then I am happy for him to sacrifice himself to that cause.
And Biden isn't straightforwardly senile. His state of the nations are sharp, there are environments, politically, in which he still seems to thrive. And his age, his frailty and decline for whatever it is, does confer a certain advantage, a straightforward, couldn't give a shitness about his candidacy that is a big advantage in dealing with someone like Trump, and plays decently in swing States too.
Now, you may think calling it a sacrifice for him to stand is not the reason he is standing, it is a vanity. That may be so, but how many join the army for reasons less noble than per la patria amore, and looking back we honour their sacrifice nonetheless. If an old man can give himself to his country, for ego, should we not salute the sacrifice just the same.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Shall we follow the money?
I will be prepared to bet, if you like, that the PAC will take lots of donations, and that Soros will be a relatively small proprtion of it.
So the AP says that Soros donated $321,000 to a PAC promoting Alicia Walton in Arkansas.
Are you saying that’s not true?
I'm saying that there is a leap of logic in the article. I agree that Soros donated money to a PAC, and that PAC spent money on that race (among other things).
Every time I've looked at one of these stories, and gone to OpenSecrets, and looked up the sums that Soros donated, it's always ended up being piddling amounts - like the $11,000 that went from Soros Fund Management employees to the Justice & Public Safety PAC, which became (in the AP article on the Maine race):
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
So, my suspicion is that the Arkansas situation will be similar. Heck, it may even be the same PAC that made the donation.
Comments
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-backs-challenge-federal-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2024-06-14/
How did that work out? Was that good for the world? Twat
Soon they'll probably expand the 2nd amendment to include grenades and rocket launchers
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
One thing Soros's foundation does do is fund attempts to bring Russian war criminals to justice for their acts in Ukraine, as per https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice I would have thought you would welcome such.
More detail here: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/the-open-society-foundations-in-ukraine Lots of good work!
I am well aware of the international aviation market. But your ability to add one and one and get eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-seven point six is quite something.
Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
It would require mice plural to be juggling. And probably requires more attention than they would ever give to their work.
400/425 Labour seats, 50ish LDs, zero Reform will do me nicely thanks.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems
2. APNI
3. Labour
4. SDLP
5. Plaid
6. Green
7. Conservative
8. SNP
9. UUP
10. Reform
11. DUP
12. SF
13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
A diagram by my favourite whimsical cartoonist Dave Walker.
PS I see that @Leon 's local viewpoint at the top of Primrose Hill includes the location https://what3words.com/slurs.after.polite .
Although there have been stories of some people doing mouse juggling, where because of remote work, they have got themselves multiple jobs at the same time.
"Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker."
source: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/13/g7-summit-2024-unpopular-leaders-biden-trudeau
Italy's Meloni leads the G7, at 42 percent: https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/global-leader-approval
(For the record, I have never thought highly of Biden, so that may explain why I don't see a large decline in his abilities in recent years. He has always had problems speaking, partly, it is claimed, because of his youthful stuttering.)
So for me probably:
1. Green
2. Labour
3. LD
4. Con
5. WPGB
6. Reform
4-6 fall a long way behind NOTA/DNV though.
I have a couple of thoughts on this:
Firstly, if I was a service employee highly dependent on tips (waiters/waitresses, hairdressers, etc.) I would be extremely keen on this. As a policy it could be a real vote winner.
Secondly, on the face of it, this is a measure that will benefit lower income workers, which I applaud.
Thirdly, this does violate Smithson's rule of economic fairness: i.e. all work should be taxed similarly. Why should a metalworker earning $25/hour be taxed at 30%, while a waitress earning the same is taxed at just 10%.
Fourth, the biggest beneficiaries (financially) from this will be serving staff in high end restaurants and bars in New York / LA, who already earn (relatively speaking) a lot.
Fifth, this will further encourage the (incredibly annoying) tippification of the US. My grocery store prompts me to tip, and a I filled my bloody bag myself, why would I pay 20% on a $150 grocery bill for someone scanning some barcodes?.
Sixth (and this is my big objection), this is an absolute boon for corruption: almost everything can now be classified as a "tip", and that means no need to pay taxes or keep records.
Small children should have something like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs&t=220s
Adults - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCTzbh4mNQ&t=18s
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/americas/2022/08/27/soft-power-irish-lobbyists-in-the-us-secure-access-to-representatives-way-beyond-that-of-other-small-countries/
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/18/irish-america-has-always-had-our-back/
At some point surely the tippification of US has to collapse on itself. It absolutely ridiculous.
"Wolves win away after Newcastle player is sent off for scything down Diogo Jota"
"Wolves win away after Jewish Newcastle player is sent off for scything down Diogo Jota"
Both statements are true. But pointing out the fact that the player is Jewish would be very odd indeed, and very likely to be motivated anti-semism. It's hard to explain why the writer would put that in when they would never normally bother with that kind of detail.
And this touches on a point I'm constantly making: you can be entirely truthful and up to mischief. Not just in the language you use, but in the things you choose to talk about. Someone who constantly trawls for naughty things done by only one group of people is clearly motivated by hatred of that group. Sometimes that's political, sometimes it's racist. It is very hard to pin the charge on them, because "they're only telling the truth". But we don't always need to prove it to know. When someone is smirking behind their semi-plausible deniability, we know.
The survey by BMG for the i newspaper found that 46 per cent of Tory voters supported the two parties co-operating.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/general-election-latest-news-sunak-starmer-farage-reform/
I’ll start with the LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-prosecutor-campaign-20180523-story.html
Then CBS News:
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/george-soros-district-attorney-campaigns-alameda-contra-costa/
How’s about the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/us/politics/george-soros-racial-justice-organizations.html
…and the New York Post:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/16/how-george-soros-funded-progressive-das-behind-us-crime-surge/
Even the Associated Press:
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-maine-portland-government-and-politics-crime-2f8ad96c907729dffd2f112d3cf1703a
That last article:
“ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
PM of the UK in 2040....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
"The origins of the crash disk are uncertain because of significant irregularities and gaps, noted in the NTSB report, in the manufacturing records of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and its suppliers.[1]: 80 Records found after the accident indicated that two rough-machined forgings having the serial number of the crash disk had been routed through GEAE manufacturing. Records indicated that Alcoa supplied GE with TIMET titanium forgings for one disk with the serial number of the crash disk. Some records show that this disk "was rejected for an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication", that an outside laboratory performed an ultrasound inspection of this disk, that this disk was subsequently returned to GE, and that this disk should have been scrapped. The FAA report stated, "There is no record of warranty claim by GEAE for defective material and no record of any credit for GEAE processed by Alcoa or TIMET".[1]: 53–55
GE records of the second disk having the serial number of the crash disk indicate that it was made with an RMI Titanium Company titanium billet supplied by Alcoa. Research of GE's records showed no other titanium parts were manufactured at GE from this RMI titanium billet during the period of 1969 to 1990. GE records indicate that final finishing and inspection of the crash disk were completed on December 11, 1971. Alcoa records indicate that this RMI titanium billet was first cut in 1972 and that all forgings made from this material were for airframe parts.[1]: 55 If the Alcoa records were accurate, the RMI titanium could not have been used to manufacture the crash disk, indicating that the initially rejected TIMET disk with "an unsatisfactory ultrasonic indication" was the crash disk."
Which is a remarkably quiet way of saying fraudulent paperwork.
1. LD
2. Lab
3. Green
4. Con
5. Reform
6. WPGB
I think Farage is dangerous but I find Galloway more so (and even more irritating).
I do wonder if any of this had much effect. I'd have thought that it would be incredibly difficult to direct this kind of message strictly at the people you want it to impact.
By suggesting the election is over, the Tories may be as likely to get people switching to Reform, or even just staying at home.
There were a bunch picked up in the sandpit a few months ago, after customs wondered why ‘new’ parts for Western planes were originating from China and heading to Africa.
I would suspect that many other industries are suffering from the same issues, but aviation is much more open about publicising their problems.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
1. LAB
2. LIB
3. SDL
4. ANI
5. SNP
6. PLC
7. GRN
8. CON
9. SFN
10. UUP
11. REF
12. DUP
13. WGB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unapproved_aircraft_part#History
Imagine a right winger wanting lifting of economic restrictions.
The introduction of the planning regime was illiberal nonsense that was one of the worst decisions of the Attlee government.
2. Conservatives
3. Reform
(94 various methods of self-mutilation or ritual suicide)
98. The Communists
99. The Nazis
100. Any religious parties
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
It was more the "local" candidate claim made me wonder if he had relocated back to the UK after he went off in a quite a public huff to I think St Nevis. Or could just be bad journalism.
Viral metagenome reveals microbial hosts and the associated antibiotic resistome on microplastics
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-024-00249-y
Microplastics provide a unique niche for viruses, promoting viral interactions with hosts and accelerating the rapid ‘horizontal’ spread of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Currently, however, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the main drivers for viral distribution on microplastics and on the resulting patterns of viral biogeographic distributions and the spread of the associated ARGs. Here we performed metagenomic and virus enrichment-based viromic sequencings on both polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics along a river. Experimental results show that Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Cyanobacteria were the potential hosts of viruses on microplastics, but only approximately 4.1% of viral variations were associated with a bacterial community. Notably, two shared ARGs and six metal resistance genes were identified in both viral and their host bacterial genomes, indicating the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer between viruses and bacteria. Furthermore, microplastics introduce more distinctive elements to viral ecology, fostering viral diversification and virus–host linkage while refraining from an escalated level of horizontal gene transfer of ARGs in contrast to natural matrixes. Our study provides comprehensive profiles of viral communities, virus-related ARGs and their driving factors on microplastics, highlighting how these anthropogenic niches provide unique interfaces that comprise highly defined viral ecological features in the environment.
1. Labour
2. SDLP
3. Green
4. SNP
5. Sinn Fein
6. Plaid
7. APNI
8. Lib Dems
9. WPGB
10. UUP
11. Conservatives
12. DUP
13. Reform.
Take a simple bolt. Say an M8 stainless. Pennies for the regular hardware store one. Aviation grade, with all the certifications?
Better markup than selling hard drugs.
However it looks like 71% of former Tory 2019 voters, so somewhere between the two figures you quoted.
However in the past year in particular, he is constantly mixing up countries, their leaders, and even claiming dead people are still leader of a particular country. And does so in a manner where he doesn't then go, oh sorry, I misspoke, I actually meant....And these aren't well I mixed up Turkmenistan with Tajikistan (this is the stuff Trump gets wrong because he is ignorant and doesn't read briefings). Biden is mixing up Iraq and Ukraine.
Then there is the weird behaviour being lost on stage, wandering off, going to shake somebodies hand again less than 30s after they just did.
"What is it about the murderous dictator [Vladimir Putin] that you admire?" Nicky Campbell asks Reform UK leader Nigel Farage
"You can recognise the fact that some people are good at what they do even if they have evil intent" Farage responds
https://bbc.in/45o12w0
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1801556058638307426
Nut and bolt from B&Q. £1 for 10.
Same nut and bolt, for an aeroplane, with the EASA Form 1*. £10 for 1.
(*For those who don’t know, the paperwork includes information about the composition of the part, its dimensions and tested strength, the factory and batch number, and can be used to recall faulty parts in future. Yes, every nut and bolt on an aeroplane is individually certified).
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
They had the production values of what looked like 1980s Open University broadcasts, but with a sweaty bald man sitting in a study armchair, expounding on the history of liberalism against the backdrop of some bookcases. They were very quaintly earnest, by today's standard.
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/detail/2024?cmte=C00651505&tab=donors
“ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
I will be prepared to bet, if you like, that the PAC will take lots of donations, and that Soros will be a relatively small proprtion of it.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Are you saying that’s not true?
I decided that my refusal to transfer my vote any further would send a stronger signal than trying to distinguish between the many and various flavours of candidate I disagreed with strongly.
As it turned out, none of the candidates I gave a preference to were elected in the 4-seat local electoral area, which is fairly indicative of the relatively fringe nature of my views, and the candidate I was probably most opposed to was the first to reach the quota on count 3, so any attempt to use my lower preferences to vote against him would have been futile.
Labour raised £926,908, followed by the Conservatives on £574,918, and Liberal Democrats with £454,999. The Scottish National Party raised £36,305 and Reform UK £140,000.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyrr1zk1e8no
I can't imagine Tory cheque books will be opening much after the past couple of weeks.
...
So, maybe low teens % of the whole electorate.
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-george-soros-midterms-biggest-donor-1757801
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
A small percentage of young people may push right and equally a percentage will not. What does that thunderbrick do? He latches onto the small percentage as proof he’s right.
Leon is pure Trump and just as stupid.
And Biden isn't straightforwardly senile. His state of the nations are sharp, there are environments, politically, in which he still seems to thrive. And his age, his frailty and decline for whatever it is, does confer a certain advantage, a straightforward, couldn't give a shitness about his candidacy that is a big advantage in dealing with someone like Trump, and plays decently in swing States too.
Now, you may think calling it a sacrifice for him to stand is not the reason he is standing, it is a vanity. That may be so, but how many join the army for reasons less noble than per la patria amore, and looking back we honour their sacrifice nonetheless. If an old man can give himself to his country, for ego, should we not salute the sacrifice just the same.
Every time I've looked at one of these stories, and gone to OpenSecrets, and looked up the sums that Soros donated, it's always ended up being piddling amounts - like the $11,000 that went from Soros Fund Management employees to the Justice & Public Safety PAC, which became (in the AP article on the Maine race):
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
So, my suspicion is that the Arkansas situation will be similar. Heck, it may even be the same PAC that made the donation.
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".