If voters don't like the cost of increasing defence spending they'll hate the cost of inaction even
Comments
-
So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
0 -
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/18/politics/video/trump-ukraine-russia-war-zelensky-putin-zeleny-lead-digvidkamski said:
is that an actual quote? I mean it wouldn't surprise me from Trump, but I can't find itTheuniondivvie said:Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
1 -
Fun fact: the bearings which allow the Jodrell Bank radio telescope to rotate vertically came from battleship gun turrets.PoodleInASlipstream said:
Not much. It takes a great deal of force to move a 1000 ton turret vertically, although it did sometimes happen there was enough movement to knock the turret off its bearings. The German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had their forward turrets disabled in heavy seas multiple times, although their turrets were fairly light as they only mounted 11-inch guns compared to the 14/15/16-inch on most battleships.Theuniondivvie said:
Heavy old beasts but you wonder how much vertical movement there was in really rough seas,3 -
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).0 -
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
0 -
Me - probably Feb 6 was the decisive point for hostility to everyone else as well as going isolationist and wrecking the USA, when he launched a serious attack on International Law.TimS said:It’s a strange situation. At what point does one conclude that the US under Trump has gone from not supportive to actually being a hostile state?
Though there was plenty of stuff before that demonstrating that the neo-fascist agenda, that there was a possibility he had been joking about as campaigning tactics, was definitely on - starting with the insurrectionist pardons, and targeting particular people in national Government and civil service who had just touched his cases as part of their routine work.0 -
@williamglenn keeps pointing to the new Bismarck in the White House.Theuniondivvie said:
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted itself as it settled on the sea bottom,Scott_xP said:
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.Theuniondivvie said:
Deploy the Swordfish!williamglenn said:
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.rottenborough said:I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have no opinion.0 -
What are our current air defences.glw said:
Russian sabotage of undersea cables. Russian intelligence operations against out communication and computer systems. Beefed up air defences. Larger security services countering Russian intelligence and sabotage campaigns. That's where I'd start.TOPPING said:
Very sweet.glw said:.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.TOPPING said:Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Who do we need to "defend ourselves" against.
That said why are you asking such a fucking stupid question in the first place?0 -
Risking a second TV recommendation in one day, but this early 80s series is worth a go :glw said:
Russian sabotage of undersea cables. Russian intelligence operations against out communication and computer systems. Beefed up air defences. Larger security services countering Russian intelligence and sabotage campaigns. That's where I'd start.TOPPING said:
Very sweet.glw said:.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.TOPPING said:Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Who do we need to "defend ourselves" against.
That said why are you asking such a fucking stupid question in the first place?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142054/
"When an ordinary British fishing vessel and its 36-man crew mysteriously disappears off the coast of Norway, journalist Martin Taylor (Tom Wilkinson) is determined to find out why. His father was on board, and is now missing. His investigations soon lead him to run up against the twin barriers of Royal Navy stonewalling and an impenetrable Soviet Politburo."0 -
I’m not hopeful. No British PM has ever shown much public steel in the face of US presidents. Our default posture is submissive.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.1 -
Steve still comes in on alternate Thursdays, but the missiles are broken so he may as well n out bother.TOPPING said:
What are our current air defences.glw said:
Russian sabotage of undersea cables. Russian intelligence operations against out communication and computer systems. Beefed up air defences. Larger security services countering Russian intelligence and sabotage campaigns. That's where I'd start.TOPPING said:
Very sweet.glw said:.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.TOPPING said:Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Who do we need to "defend ourselves" against.
That said why are you asking such a fucking stupid question in the first place?
0 -
Dangerous fish paste ! We’re still waiting to hear what concessions Russia is expected to make , so far it seems that the USA is just interested in improving economic ties with Russia and raping Ukraine of its resources .glw said:
Judging by what Trump has just been saying, absolutely parroting Russian talking points, I think we have reached that point today.TimS said:It’s a strange situation. At what point does one conclude that the US under Trump has gone from not supportive to actually being a hostile state?
Mind you it's also pretty bloody clear that Trump's brain is basically fish paste now.
And we now have the leader of the opposition fawning over Trump and making vacuous speeches.
0 -
The only question we ask is whether you'd like to use lube.TimS said:
I’m not hopeful. No British PM has ever shown much public steel in the face of US presidents. Our default posture is submissive.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.0 -
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.0 -
Possibly what JD Vance was setting up with his Romania remarks the other week. "Oh, Ukraine voted 175% in favour of the 'Mysteriously Funded Pro-Kremlin Party of Ukrainians For Mother Russia' - sounds legit!"biggles said:
What Trump hasn’t spotted, is that none of Zelensky’s likely successors take a softer line on Russia. Not that the polling really suggests he’d lose anyway.bigjohnowls said:Trump seems to think it's time for elections in Ukraine.
Methinks Zelensky is not long for this world now the US has withdrawn their support for him.
Unless any election is swung by 40 trillion postal votes from Moscow East.1 -
Speculation: First, I am not a medical professional, and I suspect even those who are have much to learn about long COVID. But I have been worrying about this possibility for a coule of months now:
The Loser had a very serious case of COVID. Those who have had COVID sometimes have medical problems long afterward. Which can include mental illness.
Repeat, that is speculation.1 -
Zelenskyy’s been in Turkey today discussing the war with Erdogan. Another one of this century’s new breed of populist strongmen with their managed democracies.
He’s also a wily old fox. I wonder what he has planned. He’s outwitted most regional powers including Russia in recent years and is possibly the only leader with the front to treat Putin with contempt.0 -
Rumpole for US Ambassador!kamski said:
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.1 -
Trump despises flatterers, actually.kamski said:
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.1 -
What he really loves is critics who see the orange light and repent.Gardenwalker said:
Trump despises flatterers, actually.kamski said:
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.0 -
From BSky
"...Jeez. Trump actually just said it. He actually just said that Ukraine shouldn't have started this war! He’s actually siding with a crazed, murderous dictator.."
https://bsky.app/profile/peterstefanovic.bsky.social/post/3liibaamszc2r0 -
This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.1
-
Absolutely - and I would be more than prepared to offer the same support (preferential sales of arms and other essentials to an allied combatant). Glad we got that sorted.turbotubbs said:
I’m not calling you a coward - I don’t see where you get that from. I’m asserting that you are wrong about the consequences of not fighting. And you need to consider the history of US support for Britain in 1939-1941, before they formally entered the war.Luckyguy1983 said:
Funny, I hear you condemning me for invented cowardice that you ascribe to a past version of me, but I've never heard you utter a single critique of how the USA handled either world war.turbotubbs said:
Revealing that you wouldn’t have given a shit for the Belgians, or the French, the Poles, the Russians either in 1914 or presumably 1939. Good clarification, thanks.Luckyguy1983 said:
And? It didn't do the USA any harm to stand on the sidelines and get rich supplying munitions, joining later to deliver the decisive blow. It didn't do them any harm as far as posterity is concerned either. Those who suggest that I'm a would-be Nazi appeaser seem to have very little cricitism of the US war records.turbotubbs said:
You might want to think what German war aims were in 1914. And consider how they treated occupied countries. And what they extracted from Russia in 1918. Nazi Germany didn’t spring out of nothing. The Germany of WW1 was not some cuddly set of chaps, just on the wrong side.Luckyguy1983 said:
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.tlg86 said:
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.Luckyguy1983 said:
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.MaxPB said:
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.Razedabode said:
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friendsMaxPB said:The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).0 -
This is victim blaming.Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
Simply maintain your focus on Trump, Musk and the rest of the crazies.0 -
Starmer would do worse than to cite or quote from Churchill’s 1938 Lights are going out speech. It’s a moving read tonight. Not for the feint hearted.
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/the-lights-are-going-out.html1 -
The point is to prevent his being involved in any talks, by making an election a precondition.biggles said:
What Trump hasn’t spotted, is that none of Zelensky’s likely successors take a softer line on Russia. Not that the polling really suggests he’d lose anyway.bigjohnowls said:Trump seems to think it's time for elections in Ukraine.
Methinks Zelensky is not long for this world now the US has withdrawn their support for him.
Unless any election is swung by 40 trillion postal votes from Moscow East.
It’s unlikely Ukraine will bow to that demand, but you can see how either Putin, or Trump, or both might think they could influence such a poll.2 -
Also shot down a Russian warplane without being nuked - an example we, or Biden the useless old git, should have noted.TimS said:Zelenskyy’s been in Turkey today discussing the war with Erdogan. Another one of this century’s new breed of populist strongmen with their managed democracies.
He’s also a wily old fox. I wonder what he has planned. He’s outwitted most regional powers including Russia in recent years and is possibly the only leader with the front to treat Putin with contempt.0 -
Starmer could admire Trump’s indefatigability.kamski said:
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.1 -
It'll be a break from.humiliating himself.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.0 -
Look what you made me do!Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
3 -
The election was lost on inflation and immigration. It is seductive to blame woke but in the end inaccurateAndy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
0 -
You can watch Trump here if you need to see how nuts he is. Gibberish and lies.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369022259112
It almost doesn't matter whether or not Russia has some hold on Trump, the results would be the same.
Also the journalists pretending any of this makes sense pisses me off.1 -
“There is another question which arises out of this. Can peace, goodwill, and confidence be built upon submission to wrong-doing backed by force?”Jonathan said:Starmer would do worse than to cite or quote from Churchill’s 1938 Lights are going out speech. It’s a moving read tonight. Not for the feint hearted.
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/the-lights-are-going-out.html2 -
Nor the faint hearted…Jonathan said:Starmer would do worse than to cite or quote from Churchill’s 1938 Lights are going out speech. It’s a moving read tonight. Not for the feint hearted.
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/the-lights-are-going-out.html
Cracking speech, though who were the ‘founders’ of the British constitution ?0 -
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !0 -
Does he? Well he may despise flatterers, but he needs flattery. Maybe Starmer should be so over the top that nobody except Trump could take him seriously, tell him he's a genius who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which Obama should never have got) and all the other Nobel prizes too. Then ask him for a small favour...Gardenwalker said:
Trump despises flatterers, actually.kamski said:
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.0 -
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.0 -
Sad news about Rick Buckler, the Jam's drummer. I've always loved the song Eton Rifles.0
-
Europe is going to offer $700 billion next week, actually.bigjohnowls said:Zelensky: "If the US stops giving us money, we will demand at least $250 billion from Europe"
Get your hands in your pockets war pigs
Dipshit.1 -
There's lots of breathless talk about raising defence spending to 12% of GDP and bringing back V bombers, but Putin shot down an airliner full of European citizens (and lied about it), interfered with our democracy, started a massive war, and sprayed a nerve agent around a UK city and we did fuck all about it.kamski said:
Also shot down a Russian warplane without being nuked - an example we, or Biden the useless old git, should have noted.TimS said:Zelenskyy’s been in Turkey today discussing the war with Erdogan. Another one of this century’s new breed of populist strongmen with their managed democracies.
He’s also a wily old fox. I wonder what he has planned. He’s outwitted most regional powers including Russia in recent years and is possibly the only leader with the front to treat Putin with contempt.
I appreciate people get off about how shit our military is, but there is more than enough to do something. Getting excited about increasing defence spending to some arbitrary figure is a distraction from the much tougher question - when are we going to do an Erdogan and actually use it?1 -
They have British-style chips and also milk chocolate, for both of which they developed a taste during the British occupation fraternal assistance in WW2. They had an indyref in 1946 which went "yes", and then they actually declared independence, but the Danish government told them they'd given the wrong answer. It also rains a lot there.Foxy said:
I've been there. It's a lovely place and very friendly.rcs1000 said:
The Faroe Islands are not our friend. You would do well to remember that.TOPPING said:Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
I suppose it's the last vestige of British exceptionalism that so many people on here and beyond find comfort in.
Edit: and I see we plan to enlist Iceland and the Faroe Islands in a military pact.
But of more immediate relevance, they have asserted a claim to Rockall, which is also claimed by Britain, which regards that islet for local government purposes as part of the Isle of Harris.
0 -
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.0 -
Could Lord Hague lead the Tories again?
Sunak steps aside for Hague in Richmond and the nominations in the 1922 force a Hague Coronation. Or is there a route back for Penny mourdant.
We need a Tory leader with some old school gravitas able to work in the national interest.0 -
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).0 -
Anyone remember how he used to phone up journalists pretending to be his own publicistkamski said:
Does he? Well he may despise flatterers, but he needs flattery. Maybe Starmer should be so over the top that nobody except Trump could take him seriously, tell him he's a genius who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which Obama should never have got) and all the other Nobel prizes too. Then ask him for a small favour...Gardenwalker said:
Trump despises flatterers, actually.kamski said:
Trump loves flattery. As a lawyer Starmer should be able to find a form of words that will sound like praise to Trump, but actually means the opposite if read carefully.biggles said:
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.Jonathan said:So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Sometimes I tell people 'I respect your unique understanding' as code for 'you're a nutter' but that's not fawning enough for Trump.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-recording-john-miller-barron-fake-press/index.html
“Madonna was in the room, and so somebody from Madonna’s entourage – because she comes in with an entourage of dancers and everything else – and somebody from Madonna’s entourage came over and said, ‘Would you go over and say hello to Madonna?’ And so he went over and said hello to Madonna and he gave his autograph to the dancers. She said, ‘These are fans’ and all this. ‘Will you give them the autograph?’ So he said, ‘Best wishes’ or something,” Miller said, according to the recording. “And then all of a sudden – and that was the end. And then he said goodbye to her and that was literally the end. He’s got zero interest in Madonna. It was literally the end.” The spokesman then goes on to purport that Madonna “wanted to go out” with Trump.0 -
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.
It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.0 -
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).0 -
From a one-sided perspective.MattW said:
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.0 -
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.0 -
It's no copincidence that it became a touchstone issue after Roe vs Wade in 1973.MattW said:
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.
It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
There was a parallel but less monomaniacal parallel campaign in the UK soon after the Abortion Act. Campaigns such as SPUC were founded around then. One event towards the broadening of the movement's base in the UK was an event called the National Festival of Light in 1971, which was aimed more at promoting "Christian Moral Standards" in society, and had people like Mary Whitehouse, Cliff Richard and Arthur Blessitt (used to walk the world wheeling a cross) involved.
Here's a recent documentary:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct3bx0
Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Festival_of_Light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology1 -
"Richard Ekins
The Lady Chief Justice has no right to condemn Starmer" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/englands-top-judge-has-no-right-to-condemn-starmer-for-his-gaza-comments/0 -
An election won't be a precondition. It may be a condition - or Zelensky could be removed by other means first. After all, he has lost the war. Trump could say either you resign now or else I'm going to say the agreement should be put to a plebiscite.Nigelb said:
The point is to prevent his being involved in any talks, by making an election a precondition.biggles said:
What Trump hasn’t spotted, is that none of Zelensky’s likely successors take a softer line on Russia. Not that the polling really suggests he’d lose anyway.bigjohnowls said:Trump seems to think it's time for elections in Ukraine.
Methinks Zelensky is not long for this world now the US has withdrawn their support for him.
Unless any election is swung by 40 trillion postal votes from Moscow East.
It’s unlikely Ukraine will bow to that demand, but you can see how either Putin, or Trump, or both might think they could influence such a poll.
Anecdata: I met a Ukrainian woman last week who is from Kharkov. "That's to the north and quite near the east?" I said. "Nooo...", she replied, "It's in the west".
You'd never get an IRA person referring to Donegal as in the south.
0 -
Of course it's no coincidence. It happened because that was a subversion of the constitution. It might have been the right thing to do, but it wasn't done in the right way.MattW said:
It's no copincidence that it became a touchstone issue after Roe vs Wade in 1973.MattW said:
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.
It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.1 -
Because they may only seem that clear cut from your current, perhaps even personal, viewpoint.kamski said:
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
For example, this country only brought in same sex marriage around a decade ago, and marital rape was only outlawed here in 2003.
Does that mean we should write off John Major and Lord Callaghan, because they did not change them?
0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/18/european-countries-experience-life-expectancy-slowdown-research-shows
"Life expectancy growth stalls across Europe as England sees sharpest decline, say researchers
Poor diet, obesity and inactivity blamed on decline with Norway the only country seeing a rise
The average annual growth in life expectancy across the continent fell from 0.23 years between 1990 and 2011 to 0.15 years between 2011 and 2019, according to research published in the Lancet Public Health journal. Of the 20 countries studied, every one apart from Norway saw life expectancy growth fall."0 -
No, Hague led the Tories to landslide defeat in 2001, Kemi is currently likely to get a hung parliament and more seat gains than he did thenJonathan said:Could Lord Hague lead the Tories again?
Sunak steps aside for Hague in Richmond and the nominations in the 1922 force a Hague Coronation. Or is there a route back for Penny mourdant.
We need a Tory leader with some old school gravitas able to work in the national interest.0 -
No, they would still have lost due to cost of living, which is now Trump and the GOP's problem, even if more narrowlyAndy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
0 -
Do the BBC never do any checks on people who are provided to them? They make more mistakes than Rachel from accounts doing her CV.
Hamas official’s son in documentary about ‘ordinary Palestinians’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/18/bbc-hamas-abdullah-al-yazouri-gaza-complaint/
They did a piece a few weeks ago about how the public in Dearborn in the US feel about conflict and the 3 main people they picked as ordinary members of the community were all well known activists.
The BBC documentary is worse, all available on social media....
A co-producer was a Palestinian activist - and one of the cameramen the BBC had hired in Gaza had saluted Oct 7.
Here is a post from Abdullah's father, praising Hamas terrorists who murdered four Israelis in June 2023.
the father of our BBC narrator - posted a family mourning message for a founder of the Hamas terrorist group.
https://x.com/mishtal/status/18917453246888879580 -
Isn't that exactly what you'd expect? The rate of growth to slow in the face of diminishing returns?Andy_JS said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/18/european-countries-experience-life-expectancy-slowdown-research-shows
"Life expectancy growth stalls across Europe as England sees sharpest decline, say researchers
Poor diet, obesity and inactivity blamed on decline with Norway the only country seeing a rise
The average annual growth in life expectancy across the continent fell from 0.23 years between 1990 and 2011 to 0.15 years between 2011 and 2019, according to research published in the Lancet Public Health journal. Of the 20 countries studied, every one apart from Norway saw life expectancy growth fall."2 -
On the other side of the coin conservatives think Francis has been too liberal in offering prayers for same sex couples and on immigration support etc while not supporting the Tridentine Latin Mass for those who wish to practice it as Benedict did. St Paul being strongly important to Roman Catholics they are unlikely to support womens' ordination as priests or bishops anytime soon either.kamski said:
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
Obviously early days and we hope Pope Francis pulls through but odds on next Pope are currently Tagle 4/1, Erdo also 4/1, Roche 5/1, De Donatis 5/1, Scola and Turkson each 8/1
https://oddspedia.com/novelty/world-novelty/next-pope
Tagle would be first Filipino Pope, Turkson first black Pope. Next Archbishop of Canterbury due to be picked by the autumn by the Crown Nominations Commission0 -
No, their form as been poor of late: it’s time for Sam Alardyce.HYUFD said:
On the other side of the coin conservatives think Francis has been too liberal in offering prayers for same sex couples and on immigration support etc while not supporting the Tridentine Latin Mass for those who wish to practice it as Benedict did. St Paul being strongly important to Roman Catholics they are unlikely to support womens' ordination as priests or bishops anytime soon either.kamski said:
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
Obviously early days and we hope Pope Francis pulls through but odds on next Pope are currently Tagle 4/1, Erdo also 4/1, Roche 5/1, De Donatis 5/1, Scola and Turkson each 8/1
https://oddspedia.com/novelty/world-novelty/next-pope
Tagle would be first Filipino Pope, Turkson first black African Pope
3 -
Is there not a transgender Cardinal that no one has ever heard of that we can back?HYUFD said:
On the other side of the coin conservatives think Francis has been too liberal in offering prayers for same sex couples and on immigration support etc while not supporting the Tridentine Latin Mass for those who wish to practice it as Benedict did. St Paul being strongly important to Roman Catholics they are unlikely to support womens' ordination as priests or bishops anytime soon either.kamski said:
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
Obviously early days and we hope Pope Francis pulls through but odds on next Pope are currently Tagle 4/1, Erdo also 4/1, Roche 5/1, De Donatis 5/1, Scola and Turkson each 8/1
https://oddspedia.com/novelty/world-novelty/next-pope
Tagle would be first Filipino Pope, Turkson first black African Pope. Next Archbishop of Canterbury due to be picked by the autumn by the Crown Nominations Commission3 -
Or as people get physically lazier, a new infectious disease that targets most people appears and food companies get better at marketing crap to us?FeersumEnjineeya said:
Isn't that exactly what you'd expect? The rate of growth to slow in the face of diminishing returns?Andy_JS said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/18/european-countries-experience-life-expectancy-slowdown-research-shows
"Life expectancy growth stalls across Europe as England sees sharpest decline, say researchers
Poor diet, obesity and inactivity blamed on decline with Norway the only country seeing a rise
The average annual growth in life expectancy across the continent fell from 0.23 years between 1990 and 2011 to 0.15 years between 2011 and 2019, according to research published in the Lancet Public Health journal. Of the 20 countries studied, every one apart from Norway saw life expectancy growth fall."0 -
LD hold Brent / Alperton
LD 1743
Lab 827
Con 740
Ref 286
33.7% turnout
LD 48.47%
Lab 23.00%
Con 20.58%
Ref 7.95%
LD +1.96%
Lab -18.28%
Con +8.38%
Ref +7.95%
swing Lab to LD 10.12%1 -
What do you think the numbers are? I think you need to take a closer look.williamglenn said:
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
It's about two, maybe three, groups: leaders, activists, and supporters (voters).
On voters, according to the polling just Christian Nationalists on his evangelical wing voting Trump are something like 13-16% of the electorate, which is 1/4-1/3 of the Trump vote of 49% of the total if they vote at the same rate as everyone else - it would probably be higher given evangelical dedication.
And that is before we add in the JD Vance Catholic Right group, some of whom embrace an ideology called "Catholic integralism", which is not dissimilar and has been in resurgence. And any other groups.
As I said, have a look at the link I posted. It maps out some of the history.
My sources:
"Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec/index.html
It was a fitting coda to an election in which Trump once again won the support of about 8 in 10 white evangelical Christian voters, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 120,000 voters. That level of support — among a group that represented about 20% of the total electorate — repeats similarly staggering evangelical support that Trump received in 2020.
https://apnews.com/article/white-evangelical-voters-support-donald-trump-president-dbfd2b4fe5b2ea27968876f19ee20c840 -
So Trump did worse among evangelicals than other recent Republican candidates.MattW said:
What do you think the numbers are? I think you need to take a closer look.williamglenn said:
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
It's about two, maybe three, groups: leaders, activists, and supporters (voters).
On voters, according to the polling just Christian Nationalists on his evangelical wing voting Trump are something like 16% of the electorate, which is 1/3 of the Trump vote if they vote at the same rate as everyone else - it would probably be higher given evangelical dedication.
And that is before we add in the JD Vance Catholic Right group, some of whom embrace an ideology called "Catholic integralism", which is not dissimilar and has been in resurgence. And any other groups.
As I said, have a look at the link I posted. It maps out some of the history.
"Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec/index.html
https://www.barna.com/research/how-people-of-faith-voted-in-the-2008-presidential-race/
Most remarkably, however, was the overwhelming support registered among evangelicals for Republican candidate John McCain. In total, 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. The 88% is statistically identical to the 85% of evangelicals who backed George W. Bush in 2004.
0 -
This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.0 -
What perspective do you think that is?williamglenn said:
From a one-sided perspective.MattW said:
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.0 -
The Tories are currently averaging 21.5% in the polls. I can't see how any leader can remain in position if that number goes below 20% for any length of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election0 -
You're taking isolated pieces of information out of context and fitting them together into a kind of conspiracy theory.MattW said:
What perspective do you think that is?williamglenn said:
From a one-sided perspective.MattW said:
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.0 -
Surely there will have to be an election in Ukraine after the war regardlessFrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.1 -
What does Trump have against Zelensky?FrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.0 -
He's not an autocrat who has clamped down on all internal dissent?Andy_JS said:
What does Trump have against Zelensky?FrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.5 -
The debate is whether they are significant amongst his support base.williamglenn said:
So Trump did worse among evangelicals than other recent Republican candidates.MattW said:
What do you think the numbers are? I think you need to take a closer look.williamglenn said:
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
It's about two, maybe three, groups: leaders, activists, and supporters (voters).
On voters, according to the polling just Christian Nationalists on his evangelical wing voting Trump are something like 16% of the electorate, which is 1/3 of the Trump vote if they vote at the same rate as everyone else - it would probably be higher given evangelical dedication.
And that is before we add in the JD Vance Catholic Right group, some of whom embrace an ideology called "Catholic integralism", which is not dissimilar and has been in resurgence. And any other groups.
As I said, have a look at the link I posted. It maps out some of the history.
"Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec/index.html
https://www.barna.com/research/how-people-of-faith-voted-in-the-2008-presidential-race/
Most remarkably, however, was the overwhelming support registered among evangelicals for Republican candidate John McCain. In total, 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. The 88% is statistically identical to the 85% of evangelicals who backed George W. Bush in 2004.
There is not much difference between 80% and 88%, and Trump won the Election with a support base significantly of that ideology.
And if you read up on the motivators, influencers, and support networks you see the philosophy. There was huge effort put into using those church networks, and targeted recruitment through use of data analysis applied to social media networks via specialist apps.0 -
I'm going to leave it there as I've given you a few pointers.williamglenn said:
You're taking isolated pieces of information out of context and fitting them together into a kind of conspiracy theory.MattW said:
What perspective do you think that is?williamglenn said:
From a one-sided perspective.MattW said:
No - I know something of the cultural / political / religious history of the USA over the last century.williamglenn said:
You seem to have gone down a real TDS rabbit hole.MattW said:
I don't see this.nico67 said:
I’m not giving a pass to those who voted for Trump . Column after newspaper column has been written about why the Dems lost the election . There should have been enough voters to say no to another Trump term. Those Trump voters who now realise some of their friends or family might be deported can fxck right off !Those struggling who thought putting a billionaire psycho in charge of cost cutting was a good idea can also do the same .Andy_JS said:This whole mess could have been avoided with just a small shift from hyperliberalism to mainstream liberalism from the Democrats over the last few years, which would probably have made the difference at the election. They were so cocooned in their own world that they couldn't see that.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the ones who didn’t vote for Trump , those who now regret their vote can suck it up !
The Trump movement has its roots and campaigns to subvert the constitution going back into the 1980s and before - though Trump gave the opportunity to push it over the line.
People like Pat Robertson made abortion the touchstone issue needing a culture way in the 1970s, a related ultra-nationalism which fed into Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, and is really where the historical energy from movements such as pro-segregation and 1950s McCarthyite campaigns went next.
If abortion has been a culture war touchstone issue since the 70s as a result of imposing a nationwide policy through judicial activism, Trump has resolved it by making it once again an issue for the states, and he's neutralised anyone wanting to make the same mistake in the other direction with a nationwide ban. Abortion will cease to be a nationally important electoral issue.
No disrespect, but you need to study the history.1 -
Spoilers!rcs1000 said:
Is there not a transgender Cardinal that no one has ever heard of that we can back?HYUFD said:
On the other side of the coin conservatives think Francis has been too liberal in offering prayers for same sex couples and on immigration support etc while not supporting the Tridentine Latin Mass for those who wish to practice it as Benedict did. St Paul being strongly important to Roman Catholics they are unlikely to support womens' ordination as priests or bishops anytime soon either.kamski said:
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
Obviously early days and we hope Pope Francis pulls through but odds on next Pope are currently Tagle 4/1, Erdo also 4/1, Roche 5/1, De Donatis 5/1, Scola and Turkson each 8/1
https://oddspedia.com/novelty/world-novelty/next-pope
Tagle would be first Filipino Pope, Turkson first black African Pope. Next Archbishop of Canterbury due to be picked by the autumn by the Crown Nominations Commission0 -
It was still a decline in support, and Trump made a point of dismissing any attempt to campaign on a national abortion ban or similar policies. I think it's a paranoid fantasy to portray his movement as being significantly influenced by Christian extremists.MattW said:
The debate is whether they are significant amongst his support base.williamglenn said:
So Trump did worse among evangelicals than other recent Republican candidates.MattW said:
What do you think the numbers are? I think you need to take a closer look.williamglenn said:
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
It's about two, maybe three, groups: leaders, activists, and supporters (voters).
On voters, according to the polling just Christian Nationalists on his evangelical wing voting Trump are something like 16% of the electorate, which is 1/3 of the Trump vote if they vote at the same rate as everyone else - it would probably be higher given evangelical dedication.
And that is before we add in the JD Vance Catholic Right group, some of whom embrace an ideology called "Catholic integralism", which is not dissimilar and has been in resurgence. And any other groups.
As I said, have a look at the link I posted. It maps out some of the history.
"Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec/index.html
https://www.barna.com/research/how-people-of-faith-voted-in-the-2008-presidential-race/
Most remarkably, however, was the overwhelming support registered among evangelicals for Republican candidate John McCain. In total, 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. The 88% is statistically identical to the 85% of evangelicals who backed George W. Bush in 2004.
There is not much difference between 80% and 88%, and Trump won the Election with a support base significantly of that ideology.
And if you read up on the motivators, influencers, and support networks you see the philosophy. There was huge effort put into using those church networks, and targeted recruitment through use of data analysis applied to social media networks via specialist apps.
Am I right in assuming that you've not lived in the US? Your attitude towards it seems to be bordering on xenophobic at times.0 -
Wow.StillWaters said:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/18/politics/video/trump-ukraine-russia-war-zelensky-putin-zeleny-lead-digvidkamski said:
is that an actual quote? I mean it wouldn't surprise me from Trump, but I can't find itTheuniondivvie said:Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
I'd love to see @Sandpit spin this one.1 -
6-0 to Putin…FrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.1 -
Trump has just called for the termination of all “Biden Era” attorneys.0
-
It’s a spoiler that you said spoiler.viewcode said:
Spoilers!rcs1000 said:
Is there not a transgender Cardinal that no one has ever heard of that we can back?HYUFD said:
On the other side of the coin conservatives think Francis has been too liberal in offering prayers for same sex couples and on immigration support etc while not supporting the Tridentine Latin Mass for those who wish to practice it as Benedict did. St Paul being strongly important to Roman Catholics they are unlikely to support womens' ordination as priests or bishops anytime soon either.kamski said:
probably, but that is how i am going to judge the head of the catholic church. because these are important issues of right and wrong - and what is the point of a religion that can't be on the right side of very clearcut issues? - and I'm sick of the excuses, bigotry and hypocrisy.MattW said:
That's a judgement on a very narrow base imo.kamski said:
Sorry, but they've all been massive disappointments. Sort out the misogyny, corruption, homophobia and child abuse. Disown the crimes against humanity. Or don't give me this crap about being a man of God.MattW said:
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was very conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.Winchy said:
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.Luckyguy1983 said:
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.JosiasJessop said:In other news, Pope Francis is ill.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
Obviously early days and we hope Pope Francis pulls through but odds on next Pope are currently Tagle 4/1, Erdo also 4/1, Roche 5/1, De Donatis 5/1, Scola and Turkson each 8/1
https://oddspedia.com/novelty/world-novelty/next-pope
Tagle would be first Filipino Pope, Turkson first black African Pope. Next Archbishop of Canterbury due to be picked by the autumn by the Crown Nominations Commission
0 -
Jesus, can't he just fire them?Gardenwalker said:Trump has just called for the termination of all “Biden Era” attorneys.
2 -
Hopefully the next German chancellor will have a different view on troops in Ukraine.0
-
Has anyone eaten at Daquise? I've just read about it again in this Jonathan Meades article.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/19/jonathan-meades-food-architecture-plagiarist-in-the-kitchen-heart-surgery0 -
The reality of Trump is that he says whatever is needed to promote his personal interest. He has been both sides of a national abortion ban, for example talking about 15 weeks in Spring 2024:williamglenn said:
It was still a decline in support, and Trump made a point of dismissing any attempt to campaign on a national abortion ban or similar policies. I think it's a paranoid fantasy to portray his movement as being significantly influenced by Christian extremists.MattW said:
The debate is whether they are significant amongst his support base.williamglenn said:
So Trump did worse among evangelicals than other recent Republican candidates.MattW said:
What do you think the numbers are? I think you need to take a closer look.williamglenn said:
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
It's about two, maybe three, groups: leaders, activists, and supporters (voters).
On voters, according to the polling just Christian Nationalists on his evangelical wing voting Trump are something like 16% of the electorate, which is 1/3 of the Trump vote if they vote at the same rate as everyone else - it would probably be higher given evangelical dedication.
And that is before we add in the JD Vance Catholic Right group, some of whom embrace an ideology called "Catholic integralism", which is not dissimilar and has been in resurgence. And any other groups.
As I said, have a look at the link I posted. It maps out some of the history.
"Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec/index.html
https://www.barna.com/research/how-people-of-faith-voted-in-the-2008-presidential-race/
Most remarkably, however, was the overwhelming support registered among evangelicals for Republican candidate John McCain. In total, 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. The 88% is statistically identical to the 85% of evangelicals who backed George W. Bush in 2004.
There is not much difference between 80% and 88%, and Trump won the Election with a support base significantly of that ideology.
And if you read up on the motivators, influencers, and support networks you see the philosophy. There was huge effort put into using those church networks, and targeted recruitment through use of data analysis applied to social media networks via specialist apps.
Am I right in assuming that you've not lived in the US? Your attitude towards it seems to be bordering on xenophobic at times.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/04/politics/trump-abortion-policy-tease/index.html
On the influence of 'extreme Christians' on the Trump administration, it's simply what exists - afaics it's not up for debate. I've given you multiple citations which you have not afaics engaged with, but all you need to do is go and read the biographies and declarations of most of his senior appointees. And track the influential groups amongst his campaign / support base.
No I wouldn't live there; it's not a country I find attractive for more than a holiday. But that has no real relevance - the USA is an enormous, diverse country where everywhere is very variable, so living in one place only gives good understanding of one bubble.
But then I've been studying the sociology and history of Usonian religion-politics, and the movements therein, pretty constantly since I was at University, and I follow the evidence I find and call it as I see it.
Cheers for the exchange - and good night.0 -
-
Australian politics.
"Clive Palmer is back with a new party and plans to copy Trump"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-19/federal-politics-live-blog-feburary-19/104951990#live-blog-post-1544630 -
It’s sad USA has such a liar and bitch as its president.glw said:You can watch Trump here if you need to see how nuts he is. Gibberish and lies.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369022259112
It almost doesn't matter whether or not Russia has some hold on Trump, the results would be the same.
Also the journalists pretending any of this makes sense pisses me off.
But is it just me, or was his chutzpah missing in that clip?
As he was knowingly inventing gibberish to justify his position, there’s clearly something about his disposition, face and eyes where’s he’s not confident the BS is actually working this time.
You know the one that goes “but I’m sure he hasn’t screwed the pig” and “I’m sure he hasn’t screwed the pig too, but make him deny it.”
Tonight Trump looks like the one denying he screwed the pig, whilst knowing he did screw the pig, and everyone’s going to find out.
Theoretically they can overreach? And suddenly realise they have gone too far, and start showing the trouble they are in?0 -
Another morning, another Russian oil facility on fire.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1892017628908060877
This one’s in Syzran, 500 miles from Ukraine. These new long range drones doing their job well.0 -
There is a big difference between before end of the war as a condition for peace and after as Ukraine returns to normal civil society they return to normal running of democracy.Gallowgate said:
Surely there will have to be an election in Ukraine after the war regardlessFrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.
Imagine the Germans in middle of WWII had said right we might be up for a peace deal but that Churchill bloke must step down and call a GE before we sign anything.2 -
"Judge Declines to Block Musk Team’s Foray Into Federal Agencies"
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/18/us/trump-news0 -
Typical - missed a bit.MattW said:
The reality of Trump is that he says whatever is needed to promote his personal interest. He has been both sides of a national abortion ban, for example talking about 15 weeks in Spring 2024:williamglenn said:
It was still a decline in support, and Trump made a point of dismissing any attempt to campaign on a national abortion ban or similar policies. I think it's a paranoid fantasy to portray his movement as being significantly influenced by Christian extremists.MattW said:
The debate is whether they are significant amongst his support base.williamglenn said:
So Trump did worse among evangelicals than other recent Republican candidates.MattW said:
What do you think the numbers are? I think you need to take a closer look.williamglenn said:
You're seriously overestimating the importance of any strand of Christian nationalism to the Trump movement.MattW said:It won't stop being a national political issue, because there is a drive to control what each individual does. And that is basic enough to be a matter for the Constitution.
Look up the history of the Dominionist movement if you want to read up a little.
It's about two, maybe three, groups: leaders, activists, and supporters (voters).
On voters, according to the polling just Christian Nationalists on his evangelical wing voting Trump are something like 16% of the electorate, which is 1/3 of the Trump vote if they vote at the same rate as everyone else - it would probably be higher given evangelical dedication.
And that is before we add in the JD Vance Catholic Right group, some of whom embrace an ideology called "Catholic integralism", which is not dissimilar and has been in resurgence. And any other groups.
As I said, have a look at the link I posted. It maps out some of the history.
"Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey."
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec/index.html
https://www.barna.com/research/how-people-of-faith-voted-in-the-2008-presidential-race/
Most remarkably, however, was the overwhelming support registered among evangelicals for Republican candidate John McCain. In total, 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. The 88% is statistically identical to the 85% of evangelicals who backed George W. Bush in 2004.
There is not much difference between 80% and 88%, and Trump won the Election with a support base significantly of that ideology.
And if you read up on the motivators, influencers, and support networks you see the philosophy. There was huge effort put into using those church networks, and targeted recruitment through use of data analysis applied to social media networks via specialist apps.
Am I right in assuming that you've not lived in the US? Your attitude towards it seems to be bordering on xenophobic at times.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/04/politics/trump-abortion-policy-tease/index.html
On the influence of 'extreme Christians' on the Trump administration, it's simply what exists - afaics it's not up for debate. I've given you multiple citations which you have not afaics engaged with, but all you need to do is go and read the biographies and declarations of most of his senior appointees. And track the influential groups amongst his campaign / support base.
No I wouldn't live there; it's not a country I find attractive for more than a holiday. But that has no real relevance - the USA is an enormous, diverse country where everywhere is very variable, so living in one place only gives good understanding of one bubble.
But then I've been studying the sociology and history of Usonian religion-politics, and the movements therein, pretty constantly since I was at University, and I follow the evidence I find and call it as I see it.
Cheers for the exchange - and good night.
The attempts to influence US politics in the direction I describe can also be seen, for example, in Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" campaigns in the 1970s, televangelist Pat Robertson (who I mentioned) of the 700 Club programme which he launched in 1966 and his influence on Reagan, and if you want to go back further Father Charles Edward Coughlin in the 1930s with his radio audience of 30 million each week. But he was not tied in to a political party afaik.
Trump literally has a prosperity-gospel preaching televangelist called Paula White with a mega church and her own private jet as his Spiritual Adviser.
She held mass events during Covid promising her congregants "supernatural protection".
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/trumps-spiritual-adviser-paula-white-is-using-the-coronavirus-crisis-to-bankroll-her-church/
White has been a key Trump promoter in that constituency for 20 years.0 -
Nothing boosts US oil production more than getting Russian production offline.Sandpit said:Another morning, another Russian oil facility on fire.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1892017628908060877
This one’s in Syzran, 500 miles from Ukraine. These new long range drones doing their job well.1 -
Well I’m sure there will be elections there once there’s peace, and surely the whole point of elections is that they could oust the leaders from office?FrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.
IIRC there were supposed to be elections last year but they were postponed under a war law, because you can’t organise an election when half your country is occupied by invaders and millions of refugees have fled.0 -
Sec Rubio’s statement following what looks like it was a one-day meeting yesterday.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-russian-foreign-minister-lavrov/
Nothing particularly controversial in there, says that there needs to be an agreement acceptable to all sides in the conflict, and dangling a carrot of a restoration of dimplomatic and economic opportunities for US/Russia relations dependent on the end of the war.
Allegedly Lavrov’s first talking point was about how wonderful it would be for Trump to build an hotel in Sochi. LOL.
More concerningly, he also allegedly made no concessions at all towards actually ending the war.
Let’s see what Gen. Kellogg has to say now, as he meets with a Ukranian delegation. Presumably Rubio and Kellogg will then meet with Trump and Vance to try and work out if there’s agreement on anything. I don’t think there will much agreement at this stage.
Mr Mandleson now has an important job to do, to make sure that Rubio and his team understand the British (and majority European) view of what an end to the conflict looks like.0 -
He's parroting what Putin has against Zelensky. That he has a true democratic mandate for his actions.Andy_JS said:
What does Trump have against Zelensky?FrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.0 -
Neither Rubio nor Kellogg's statements are really relevant to what's happening. And trying to affect that by lobbying Rubio is very likely a waste of time. Their job is to sell whatever Trump decides to us.8Sandpit said:Sec Rubio’s statement following what looks like it was a one-day meeting yesterday.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-russian-foreign-minister-lavrov/
Nothing particularly controversial in there, says that there needs to be an agreement acceptable to all sides in the conflict, and dangling a carrot of a restoration of dimplomatic and economic opportunities for US/Russia relations dependent on the end of the war.
Allegedly Lavrov’s first talking point was about how wonderful it would be for Trump to build an hotel in Sochi. LOL.
More concerningly, he also allegedly made no concessions at all towards actually ending the war.
Let’s see what Gen. Kellogg has to say now, as he meets with a Ukranian delegation. Presumably Rubio and Kellogg will then meet with Trump and Vance to try and work out if there’s agreement on anything. I don’t think there will much agreement at this stage.
Mr Mandleson now has an important job to do, to make sure that Rubio and his team understand the British (and majority European) view of what an end to the conflict looks like.
The people currently in the room with the Russians that probably count are those closer to Trump - Mike Waltz and Steve Witkoff.
Trump reportedly plans to meet with Putin within a month. I seriously doubt that either Rubio or Kellogg will have a huge amount of input into that discussion.
Listen to what Trump himself is saying.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/18/trump-blames-zelenskyy-ukraine-war-020517
..“Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited,’” Trump said when asked about criticism from Ukraine, seeming to direct his response to Zelenskyy. “Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.”
The comment — ignoring that it was Russia that invaded Ukraine without provocation three years ago this month — was Trump’s harshest condemnation to date of the Ukrainian side. It came as Zelenskyy and leaders across Europe are scrambling to respond to growing indications that Kyiv’s most critical ally for the last three years appears to be more interested in normalizing relations with Russia than in making sure Ukraine endures and that Russian President Vladimir Putin faces stronger deterrence after starting the first land war on European soil since 1945.
Trump also confirmed his interest in forcing elections in Ukraine as part of any diplomatic resolution to the war...
...Trump also pushed back on a question stating that forcing Zelenskyy to stand for reelection was a Russian priority.
“That’s not a Russia thing,” Trump said. “That’s something coming from me and a lot of other countries also.”..
1 -
BlackwoodNigelb said:
Nor the faint hearted…Jonathan said:Starmer would do worse than to cite or quote from Churchill’s 1938 Lights are going out speech. It’s a moving read tonight. Not for the feint hearted.
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/the-lights-are-going-out.html
Cracking speech, though who were the ‘founders’ of the British constitution ?
Dicey
Coke
Burke
De Montfort
Apologies to others I have forgotten2 -
That's not what's going on.Sandpit said:
Well I’m sure there will be elections there once there’s peace, and surely the whole point of elections is that they could oust the leaders from office?FrancisUrquhart said:This isn't going to fly....
Donald Trump is demanding Volodymyr Zelensky hold elections that could oust him from office as the price of peace.
IIRC there were supposed to be elections last year but they were postponed under a war law, because you can’t organise an election when half your country is occupied by invaders and millions of refugees have fled.
The line from both Russia and Trump U.S. that they want ejections as a precondition for alllwing Ukraine to even negotiate.
Zelenskyy has said for some time he'll have an election as soon as there's peace. That's not what they're demanding.2
