Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
True . Europe needs to look after itself and has been in denial for years .
Even if Harris wins it’s time as you said to “ step up”.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
Or are still pretending it’s never going to happen.
"She is some sick bastard, that Hillary Clinton. What a sick son of a bitch. The whole fucking party. A bunch of degenerates. Lowlives, Jew-haters, and lowlives. Every one of 'em. Every one of 'em." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850618361400463682
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
How would you rate Trump as an ally versus De Gaulle in the 1960s?
No one who booked that guy should be running anything.
Not an aberration.
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” https://x.com/Acyn/status/1850613597304455412
No one who booked that guy should be running anything.
Not an aberration.
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” https://x.com/Acyn/status/1850613597304455412
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
Or are still pretending it’s never going to happen.
Herman Kahn note the phenomenon, where if a problem is big enough, the decision makers don’t just ignore it. They active persecute anyone who tries to bring it to their attention, “For being problematic”.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
My Mum has had a very busy weekend and decided not to bother cooking tonight; her and Dad are having a takeaway curry
So she's given me the rack of local lamb (from the best local farmshop) that she was going to cook
There's a whole.pound of it, so I've decided to just make a red wine, garlic and herb (rosemary, thyme and chives) sauce to go with
Even minus fat and bones, a pound of French trimmed lamb rack has to be enough for one?
I'll know in about an hour
Oh you brute! Rack of lamb!.. FFS.
I'm having a chilli, although there is a vaguely enticing aspect that I've been stewing some dried chillis for several hours - one has become huge! It'll be just chilli though and the best bit will probably be the hefty cheese contrast.
Fillet steaks with peppercorn sauce in chez Malc
Are you any good as a cook? I'm not although once or twice in my life I've stumbled into getting it right. I've never got a steak right though, but in part that's due to smoke alarms.
if smoke alarms are going off you are over cooking it
Possibly, but steak cooked rare in very hot butter can definitely set off a smoke alarm if it's too close to the hob
Exactly that
My smoke alarms have all been disabled admittedly so maybe butter fried would set them off however I never cook steaks more that 5 seconds a side either
Another small victory for 'Pagan against the system', eh?
I'm with Pagan on this. I dislike all alarms. More trouble than they're worth. Ditto almost all insurance. Don't do any of that stuff.
Compulsory door closers is another one. A fire precaution. Imagine escaping a fire. Try opening your front door against one... while holding on to your Zimmer frame.
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
How would you rate Trump as an ally versus De Gaulle in the 1960s?
Shouldn’t you be changing your profile pic ? You might otherwise give the wrong impression that you support Ukraine .
On the topic of Sunday music, I've been listening to gospel all day today
My favourite gospel song is Just A Closer Walk With Me. This might be because it's in the opening scene of of one my favourite movies, White Men Can't Jump
Woody is looking for a game at Venice Beach and asks the old dudes. The ask for a donation, so he gives them a dollar. They give him a dollar's worth
My favourite video of the song, even though the audio quality is ropey, is this one of Mahalia Jackson at the Newport jazz festival. Louis Armstrong comes on stage to sing with her near the end
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
Or are still pretending it’s never going to happen.
Herman Kahn note the phenomenon, where if a problem is big enough, the decision makers don’t just ignore it. They active persecute anyone who tries to bring it to their attention, “For being problematic”.
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
Ferguson should stfu ! It was Trump who was arselicking Hitiers generals , everyone with a functioning brain cell knows it’s the sort of thing he’d say .
No one who booked that guy should be running anything.
Not an aberration.
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” https://x.com/Acyn/status/1850613597304455412
Holy cow. They've really taken the 'fascist' thing to heart. I could almost see this as a Mel Brooks segment in earlier times.
"And then I said to the Führer, 'Have you heard this one about the Latino's? No - well! They...."
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
There's something about him in both written and TV form I just find... creepy. That's not quite the right word, but he just sets my nerves jangling.
Suchet is a fanatastic actor (saw him many years ago as Bolingbroke in Richard II), but his performance isn’t for everyone. Apparently he perfected Poirot’s gait by holding a sixpence between his arse cheeks. Miss Marple would not have approved.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
May I offer you, in addition, a little advice. Bear in mind that the amateur professional is peculiarly rapacious. This applies both to women and to people who play cards. If you must back horses, back them at a reasonable price and both ways. And, if you insist on blowing out your brains, do it in some place where you will not cause mess and inconvenience.
Here is an example of nhs waste for you. Two days now since I lost my ventolin inhaler and cant get a prescription.....fighting with national health 111 all I am asking for is give me an emergency prescription in case I have an attack....they keep insisting despite having been prescribed it for 40 odd years I have to goto a walk in centre I can't actually get to rather than just issuing the prescription to get me through...if I have an asthma attack tonight the nhs will have to raise an ambulance.....get me in ed....give me oxygen etc...its not like its a dangerous or addictive drug
So an asthma attack will cost the a couple of thousand rather than just issuing the fucking prescription
Writing as an asthmatic of 80 years standing, and a pharmacist, albeit now retired, why not go to a pharmacy, explain the circumstances and buy one. Of course, you could do what I do and ALWAYS have a spare!
I tried that they said they cant sell me one....told me to ring nhs 111 to send them an emergency prescription spent two days now going in circles where they tell me they can't do it unless I goto the walk in centre which I cant get to as I have no car
You aren't registered with a GP, so where have your previous prescriptions come from?
Pharmacists will dispense in anticipation of a repeat prescription if you regularly fill prescriptions with them. If not then they cannot provide Prescription Only Medicines.
Err because I was registered with a gp before I moved to devon two years ago which last filled the prescription and yes the inhaler I lost was probably out of date
In that case you should still be registered with your previous GP, who should be able to access their records and issue a repeat.
I doubt that I a told them I wasn't on their books anymore as they were useless
Should also add I don't want to register at my local gp's as they are even worse
Well that ought to teach 'em.
Why should they be paid for not giving any service? Please explain...if I am ill they won't see me till I am either better or dead....I have been asthmatic for a long time 30 odd years so the work diagnosing that is nil
The service is repeat prescriptions, but for that there need to be records.
The per-capita element of GP pay is a bit "win some, lose some" some registered patients never need an appointment, others are in every week.
Why do I need a gp for that when I know what I need is an inhaler prescription. GP's are largely worthless for the majority of people
well, it is a prescription only medicine, and GPs can write these. They may be a bit more useful than you think.
So there use is they can write a prescription for something you have already been diagnosed with?
They in my case get £137 pounds per year for writing me a repeat perscription once a year for an inhaler....then you wonder why we think the nhs is wasting money
as I said "win some, lose some"
For the average patient it is 5-6 consultations per year, so excellent value at £137.
It would be nearly twice that for a single private consultation at Spire.
The average patient on a gp list? Is that one of those twisted statistics in which 65% of people in the list don’t see their doctor from decade to the next, and 5% twice a week?
I am not a GP, but apparently about 40% of appointments are taken up by heavy users who have 15-20 appointments per year, so it is heavily skewed.
I havent seen my GP for over 5 years, but do have an annual BP review and bloods with the practice nurse. Its a requirement for getting repeat prescriptions, but seems very reasonable to me.
I think my last gp I saw 3 times in 20 years. The number of times tried to see them was probably 4 to 5 times that but no point having the appointment after you are better
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
The fact that Trump is clearly a wannabe autocrat invalidates that observation.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
How would you rate Trump as an ally versus De Gaulle in the 1960s?
I think De Gaulle was very difficult and prickly. I’d have hated the guy, back then. But now, I see he was clear-sighted. Keeping Algeria with France meant Columbeye Les Deux Eglises becoming Columbeye Les Deux Mosques.
Empires had become a millstone round the necks of European powers.
Trump is erratic. The problem is, that people like Vance and much of the US Right very plainly see Putin’s Russia as an ally. And a blueprint for government.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
I have quite a lot of Poirot/Marple stories saved on my phone. Very good to dip into as 'bed-time stories' as they are so familiar to me. And I don't feel that guilty if I drift off and have to guesstimate where to start again the next night.
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
All the swearing - "cursing" - is a surprise. I don't remember that being a thing in US politics previously, and Trump never did.
That's a big, and possibly emblematic, change in this election.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
No one who booked that guy should be running anything.
Not an aberration.
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” https://x.com/Acyn/status/1850613597304455412
Good grief . What an absolute hate fest .
I have to admit to being slightly surprised how much they’re openly celebrating hate. As one of the campaign’s final pitches to the electorate.
At some point even JD will have to give up pretending not to see it, which he’s made his specialty this election.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
There's something about him in both written and TV form I just find... creepy. That's not quite the right word, but he just sets my nerves jangling.
Suchet is a fanatastic actor (saw him many years ago as Bolingbroke in Richard II), but his performance isn’t for everyone. Apparently he perfected Poirot’s gait by holding a sixpence between his arse cheeks. Miss Marple would not have approved.
I agree Suchet portrays him well. The fact I don't like Poirot in written form either indicates it is his character that annoys me, rather than the portrayal.
Here is an example of nhs waste for you. Two days now since I lost my ventolin inhaler and cant get a prescription.....fighting with national health 111 all I am asking for is give me an emergency prescription in case I have an attack....they keep insisting despite having been prescribed it for 40 odd years I have to goto a walk in centre I can't actually get to rather than just issuing the prescription to get me through...if I have an asthma attack tonight the nhs will have to raise an ambulance.....get me in ed....give me oxygen etc...its not like its a dangerous or addictive drug
So an asthma attack will cost the a couple of thousand rather than just issuing the fucking prescription
Writing as an asthmatic of 80 years standing, and a pharmacist, albeit now retired, why not go to a pharmacy, explain the circumstances and buy one. Of course, you could do what I do and ALWAYS have a spare!
I tried that they said they cant sell me one....told me to ring nhs 111 to send them an emergency prescription spent two days now going in circles where they tell me they can't do it unless I goto the walk in centre which I cant get to as I have no car
You aren't registered with a GP, so where have your previous prescriptions come from?
Pharmacists will dispense in anticipation of a repeat prescription if you regularly fill prescriptions with them. If not then they cannot provide Prescription Only Medicines.
Err because I was registered with a gp before I moved to devon two years ago which last filled the prescription and yes the inhaler I lost was probably out of date
In that case you should still be registered with your previous GP, who should be able to access their records and issue a repeat.
I doubt that I a told them I wasn't on their books anymore as they were useless
Should also add I don't want to register at my local gp's as they are even worse
Well that ought to teach 'em.
Why should they be paid for not giving any service? Please explain...if I am ill they won't see me till I am either better or dead....I have been asthmatic for a long time 30 odd years so the work diagnosing that is nil
The service is repeat prescriptions, but for that there need to be records.
The per-capita element of GP pay is a bit "win some, lose some" some registered patients never need an appointment, others are in every week.
Why do I need a gp for that when I know what I need is an inhaler prescription. GP's are largely worthless for the majority of people
well, it is a prescription only medicine, and GPs can write these. They may be a bit more useful than you think.
So there use is they can write a prescription for something you have already been diagnosed with?
They in my case get £137 pounds per year for writing me a repeat perscription once a year for an inhaler....then you wonder why we think the nhs is wasting money
as I said "win some, lose some"
For the average patient it is 5-6 consultations per year, so excellent value at £137.
It would be nearly twice that for a single private consultation at Spire.
The average patient on a gp list? Is that one of those twisted statistics in which 65% of people in the list don’t see their doctor from decade to the next, and 5% twice a week?
I am not a GP, but apparently about 40% of appointments are taken up by heavy users who have 15-20 appointments per year, so it is heavily skewed.
I havent seen my GP for over 5 years, but do have an annual BP review and bloods with the practice nurse. Its a requirement for getting repeat prescriptions, but seems very reasonable to me.
I think my last gp I saw 3 times in 20 years. The number of times tried to see them was probably 4 to 5 times that but no point having the appointment after you are better
With something like asthma a review of why the attack happened can be helpful.
Just saying. As one long-term asthmatic to another.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
I have quite a lot of Poirot/Marple stories saved on my phone. Very good to dip into as 'bed-time stories' as they are so familiar to me. And I don't feel that guilty if I drift off and have to guesstimate where to start again the next night.
Hugh Fraser (Captain Hastings) is a wonderful narrator of books.
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
I won't say what I think about Grant Cardone as he loves to sue people, but I personally wouldn't want him anywhere near my brand. You don't have to look very hard online to see that many people have highlighted issues with his business dealings.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
This is a hill I will die on.
Sayers commented that when she wanted to marry Wimsey off and created Harriet Vane for him (a reaction to her own disastrous affairs with John Cournos and then Bill White) she realised she had to make him a much more serious and deeper character than he had been hitherto. Which is why he 'takes off' in later books in a way he doesn't in say, Whose Body? or Unnatural Death.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
POTUS 2024 has all the characteristics of UK 2015 when all the polls herded to a dead heat...
It's likely to be a decisive win for one or the other- my head says Trump, but in 2015 I never saw Cameron's big win coming...I spent most of that day with our very own Nick Palmer in Broxtowe....
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
Lloyd George knew my father; Father knew Lloyd George.
Labour's pretence about being very different to the other lot, the first 100 or so days, has shown business as usual, no matter how many times Rachael Reeves will bang on about being the first female chancellor on Wednesday breaking that glass ceiling, if you were a donor or a family member, interview not required for a prime job.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
I’m watching the Zelenskyy story on iplayer. Hadn’t got round to it until now. Excellent, especially episode 2.
He’s a remarkable man . It was a great watch and makes me even more supportive of Ukraine . Trump and his bone spurs the supposed tough guy v Zelensky!
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
He is probably right. Niall Ferguson is still a t**t though
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
I won't say what I think about Grant Cardone as he loves to sue people, but I personally wouldn't want him anywhere near my brand. You don't have to look very hard online to see that many people have highlighted issues with his business dealings.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
Isn't it the opposite that we are supposed to fear? That he will rally his base for violence after he wins.
How is 'rallying his base for violence' the opposite of 'rallying his base for violence'?
The author of the tweet thinks that rallying them for violence implies losing the election, which suggests that he doesn't really believe that a victorious Trump would instigate a fascist state.
POTUS 2024 has all the characteristics of UK 2015 when all the polls herded to a dead heat...
It's likely to be a decisive win for one or the other- my head says Trump, but in 2015 I never saw Cameron's big win coming...I spent most of that day with our very own Nick Palmer in Broxtowe....
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
I won't say what I think about Grant Cardone as he loves to sue people, but I personally wouldn't want him anywhere near my brand. You don't have to look very hard online to see that many people have highlighted issues with his business dealings.
He’s an unpleasant piece of work, certainly.
How nice a man he is or isn't, I don't think that is the overriding criticism.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
I don't think anyone is deliberately prolonging it, least of all Putin and Zelensky, and in 2023 the much vaunted Ukranian counter offensive was an attempt to break the deadlock. I think though that a stalemate does suit many, not least for NATO by preventing Russia from taking serious interest elsewhere though NATO hasn't used that interval very well to prepare for the aftermath, perhaps the Poles excepted.
POTUS 2024 has all the characteristics of UK 2015 when all the polls herded to a dead heat...
It's likely to be a decisive win for one or the other- my head says Trump, but in 2015 I never saw Cameron's big win coming...I spent most of that day with our very own Nick Palmer in Broxtowe....
Yes, there was a Twitter poll about his. The vast majority voted for herding as the most likely explanation of current numbers.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
I don't think I can ever get use to the senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of sentient human beings, and destruction of cities and natural ecosystems for Putin's vanity
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
Certainly it has reformed the Russian army, it was hopeless at the start, now it is has built up supply lines, international alliances, and other capabilities; so it is prepared for the next invasion after a bit of a break.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
The usual claim is that Harris is a 'communist'.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
This is a hill I will die on.
Sayers commented that when she wanted to marry Wimsey off and created Harriet Vane for him (a reaction to her own disastrous affairs with John Cournos and then Bill White) she realised she had to make him a much more serious and deeper character than he had been hitherto. Which is why he 'takes off' in later books in a way he doesn't in say, Whose Body? or Unnatural Death.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
Somewhat related - I've been trying to track down an old thriller from that period (I think!). Certainly had a 1930s feel). I had a radio dramatisation of it. It was a couple - the husband was a gentleman/amateur detective of the 'serious sort'. There is some sort of threat to the nation - head of the secret service who is (as I remember) one of the couples uncle or somesuch.
Wife has to go away, tours the country incognito, meets various people including being rescued by an Eurythmy school group. Eventually ending up at some sort of country house (natch) where some villainous rich industrial types were planning a fascist coup. I think the game was given away by a clock-face in the ornamental garden - but I might be hallucinating that part.
If anyone has any idea - it would put me out of my misery!
I listened to it while I was down with the flu one year - so I could be confusing a dozen other stories. But I've never been able to track it down and I'm convinced it was real.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
Isn't it the opposite that we are supposed to fear? That he will rally his base for violence after he wins.
How is 'rallying his base for violence' the opposite of 'rallying his base for violence'?
The author of the tweet thinks that rallying them for violence implies losing the election, which suggests that he doesn't really believe that a victorious Trump would instigate a fascist state.
Huh? So Hitler rallying the SA for violence during the March 1933 election didn't presage the establishment of a Fascist state? Or Mussolini's March on Rome? Or the White Terror presage the Horthy regime? Or the Red Terror the Communists?
That's the most bizarre non-sequitur you've ever come up with.
No one who booked that guy should be running anything.
Not an aberration.
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” https://x.com/Acyn/status/1850613597304455412
Puerto Ricans are a sizeable swing demographic in the swing state of Pennsylvania. Possibly also Florida if the vote is close.
Here is an example of nhs waste for you. Two days now since I lost my ventolin inhaler and cant get a prescription.....fighting with national health 111 all I am asking for is give me an emergency prescription in case I have an attack....they keep insisting despite having been prescribed it for 40 odd years I have to goto a walk in centre I can't actually get to rather than just issuing the prescription to get me through...if I have an asthma attack tonight the nhs will have to raise an ambulance.....get me in ed....give me oxygen etc...its not like its a dangerous or addictive drug
So an asthma attack will cost the a couple of thousand rather than just issuing the fucking prescription
There's an ongoing problem with inhaler prescriptions for some reason. My daughter us having serous problems getting a replacement in reasonable time, as one runs out.
Starmer's Britain...
Some surgeries processes are more efficient than others. When I was concerned with these things, some caused me to tear my hair out. I must say that the surgery where I am now registered is very efficient.
Any interaction really with the NHS tells you that it is astonishingly inefficient. Many people must die each year for this simple reason. They're also terribly ineffective. The whole diagnosis and treatment plan is really quite poor. Again there are people dying because of this - that's their primary cause of death - the NHS.
Vast numbers are served well by the NHS though. The whole clapping nonsense during covid highlighted that, and whilst a bit daft, was clearly not misplaced.
There are lots of inefficiencies in the NHS and while productivity improvements via investment in tech, capital equipment and training are all needed there are some things that would improve it with little cost. Indeed I have been stewing some of these myself.
I saw the good and bad at first hand, a fortnight ago.
My wife had a bad fall in Italy, and had to go hospital. The ambulance was admirably swift, as was her admission to treatment.
The Italian doctor was a complete pig, who wrote a pack of lies on her medical report, we realised, upon getting it translated.
On returning home, she felt very ill, so we went to A & E. Lengthy waits, but the staff were (with one exception, who preferred to watch porn on his I phone), very kind and helpful.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
The usual claim is that Harris is a 'communist'.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
Of course. Harris / the Dems do not do most of the stuff they are accused of. Trump? Absolutely does the stuff that his former cabinet members / chiefs of staff accuse him of.
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
Pennsylvania has a large population of Puerto Rican’s . It’s all over social media already . The tirade by that so called comedian looks a bit stupid now .
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
POTUS 2024 has all the characteristics of UK 2015 when all the polls herded to a dead heat...
It's likely to be a decisive win for one or the other- my head says Trump, but in 2015 I never saw Cameron's big win coming...I spent most of that day with our very own Nick Palmer in Broxtowe....
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
Isn't it the opposite that we are supposed to fear? That he will rally his base for violence after he wins.
How is 'rallying his base for violence' the opposite of 'rallying his base for violence'?
The author of the tweet thinks that rallying them for violence implies losing the election, which suggests that he doesn't really believe that a victorious Trump would instigate a fascist state.
Huh? So Hitler rallying the SA for violence during the March 1933 election didn't presage the establishment of a Fascist state? Or Mussolini's March on Rome? Or the White Terror presage the Horthy regime? Or the Red Terror the Communists?
That's the most bizarre non-sequitur you've ever come up with.
If you witnessed Hitler in March 1933, would you think, "These guys think they're going to lose!"?
Pennsylvania has a large population of Puerto Rican’s . It’s all over social media already . The tirade by that so called comedian looks a bit stupid now .
Maybe he's a plant. Undermining the Great MAGA Project? Maybe?
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
I don't think anyone is deliberately prolonging it, least of all Putin and Zelensky, and in 2023 the much vaunted Ukranian counter offensive was an attempt to break the deadlock. I think though that a stalemate does suit many, not least for NATO by preventing Russia from taking serious interest elsewhere though NATO hasn't used that interval very well to prepare for the aftermath, perhaps the Poles excepted.
I don't think it's a deliberate policy of stalemate on the part of the liberal part of the West. I think it's more that Ukraine gets a budget, financial and diplomatic, and has to shift as best it can within that budget. When it might have been better to throw everything at getting Russia out of Ukraine.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
My point wasn't that the Republican message was all positive. I'm sure the Republican closing messaging will be a mix of positive and negative. My point was that the Democrat messaging seems to be entirely negative. They also need a positive message to finish as well.
I find it interesting that someone posted an Economist article below with the candidates economic policies. They state that Kamala's policies have polled quite well but until now I haven't heard anything about any of them.
If we sum up the parties elevator pitches then the Republican pitch seems to be "We'll fix the border. We'll fix the cost of living. We'll cut crime. Make America great again", while the Democrat pitch seems to be "Trump is a fascist. Trump is unstable. It's the end of democracy."
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
Isn't it the opposite that we are supposed to fear? That he will rally his base for violence after he wins.
How is 'rallying his base for violence' the opposite of 'rallying his base for violence'?
The author of the tweet thinks that rallying them for violence implies losing the election, which suggests that he doesn't really believe that a victorious Trump would instigate a fascist state.
Huh? So Hitler rallying the SA for violence during the March 1933 election didn't presage the establishment of a Fascist state? Or Mussolini's March on Rome? Or the White Terror presage the Horthy regime? Or the Red Terror the Communists?
That's the most bizarre non-sequitur you've ever come up with.
If you witnessed Hitler in March 1933, would you think, "These guys think they're going to lose!"?
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Tax cutting.
Yes, they managed to cut taxes up to record levels.
Pennsylvania has a large population of Puerto Rican’s . It’s all over social media already . The tirade by that so called comedian looks a bit stupid now .
Within the bubble, it won't have mattered. And neither US party is good at thinking outside their bubble. (Dems are poor, Reps are worse... See all those abortion votes that have been as popular as a turd on a pancake.)
However. If the whole Republican campaign were a Bialystock & Bloom scam, and was now in real danger of working, so had to be killed at the last minute, how would it be distinguishable from this?
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
I think the view, back in 2010, was that we’d avoid conflict by becoming an “Aid Superpower.”
If you think this was idiotic … well, I don’t disagree.
Comments
Even if Harris wins it’s time as you said to “ step up”.
https://x.com/kenvogel/status/1850553797992464556
(stuffs fist into mouth to prevent the screams)
She’ll have Beyoncé or Springsteen instead.
"She is some sick bastard, that Hillary Clinton. What a sick son of a bitch. The whole fucking party. A bunch of degenerates. Lowlives, Jew-haters, and lowlives. Every one of 'em. Every one of 'em."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850618361400463682
“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico”
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1850613597304455412
You do get some jolting opinions on here sometimes.
Grant Cardone calls Mark Cuban a "simp" and says Kamala Harris has "pimp handlers." He then says of Democrats "we need to slaughter these other people"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
I hope @GarethoftheVale2 is getting his dose of positive.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1850634324963385682
We have Gospel to Proclaim (tune Fulda)
Lord thy Word abideth (tune Ravenshaw)
Thou whose almighty word (tune Moscow)
The Church is one foundation (tune aurelia)
4 rousing hyms ...perfect for Evensong.
4 great hymns assoc with Bible Sunday
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
"And then I said to the Führer, 'Have you heard this one about the Latino's? No - well! They...."
Apparently he perfected Poirot’s gait by holding a sixpence between his arse cheeks. Miss Marple would not have approved.
May I offer you, in addition, a little advice. Bear in mind that the amateur professional is peculiarly rapacious. This applies both to
women and to people who play cards. If you must back horses, back them at a reasonable price and both ways. And, if you insist on
blowing out your brains, do it in some place where you will not cause mess and inconvenience.
...
[Claire] Reynolds, who is also the wife of the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, will have to handle the sensitive task of liaising with Labour’s 403 MPs
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/27/keir-starmer-appoints-former-blair-and-brown-aide-as-his-political-director
Lloyd George knew my father; Father knew Lloyd George.
This is a hill I will die on.
Deux Mosques.
Empires had become a millstone round the necks of European powers.
Trump is erratic. The problem is, that people like Vance and much of the US Right very plainly see Putin’s Russia as an ally. And a blueprint for government.
That's a big, and possibly emblematic, change in this election.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
At some point even JD will have to give up pretending not to see it, which he’s made his specialty this election.
Just saying. As one long-term asthmatic to another.
It’s usually a lot fewer than six degrees of separation.
Random oddball election-related fact for the day:
Jill Stein was a college classmate of Chuck Schumer.
(And of Bonnie Raitt. And Frank Rich. And Katha Pollitt. And my wife.)
Nearly all of them have turned out very well…
https://x.com/JamesFallows/status/1850275876446883899
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
It's likely to be a decisive win for one or the other- my head says Trump, but in 2015 I never saw Cameron's big win coming...I spent most of that day with our very own Nick Palmer in Broxtowe....
Harris: 45%
Trump: 39%
Ipsos / Oct 22, 2024 / n=2808
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1850630243154792618
The vast majority voted for herding as the most likely explanation of current numbers.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
Wife has to go away, tours the country incognito, meets various people including being rescued by an Eurythmy school group. Eventually ending up at some sort of country house (natch) where some villainous rich industrial types were planning a fascist coup. I think the game was given away by a clock-face in the ornamental garden - but I might be hallucinating that part.
If anyone has any idea - it would put me out of my misery!
I listened to it while I was down with the flu one year - so I could be confusing a dozen other stories. But I've never been able to track it down and I'm convinced it was real.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
That's the most bizarre non-sequitur you've ever come up with.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
I find it interesting that someone posted an Economist article below with the candidates economic policies. They state that Kamala's policies have polled quite well but until now I haven't heard anything about any of them.
If we sum up the parties elevator pitches then the Republican pitch seems to be "We'll fix the border. We'll fix the cost of living. We'll cut crime. Make America great again", while the Democrat pitch seems to be "Trump is a fascist. Trump is unstable. It's the end of democracy."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfao1s3Tiek
(HMS Pinafore)
However. If the whole Republican campaign were a Bialystock & Bloom scam, and was now in real danger of working, so had to be killed at the last minute, how would it be distinguishable from this?
(See also Musk's recent remarks.)
If you think this was idiotic … well, I don’t disagree.