What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
He's 83 now. At the next election he will be 87.
In a country that is supposed to be even more youth-obsessed than ours.
If he's a hope it's a frail one.
AOC is Bernie’s heir apparent. Can’t see it working in normal circumstances but she would certainly energise the base in a way Harris didn’t.
AOC even energises the base of certain PB righties I believe.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
He's 83 now. At the next election he will be 87.
In a country that is supposed to be even more youth-obsessed than ours.
If he's a hope it's a frail one.
They have to be youth obsessed.
Otherwise they might notice that, unlike Canada, they can expect to die at 77 not 80.
One interesting stat is that life expectancy in Panama and Mexico are not that far from catching up with the USA.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
Can I help you out of your deep hole of denial ?
We were told that Joe Biden wasn't senile.
We were told that Hunter Biden wasn't a criminal.
We were told that Joe Biden would not pardon Hunter Biden.
We were told it was good that centrists like Manchin and Sinema had been driven out of the Dem party.
We were told it was good that Vance was mocked for having a deprived upbringing.
The Dems need to take a good look at how they've repeatedly fucked up and clear out those who enabled it.
But that would require some honesty and hard work wouldn't it.
And its so much easier to wave the pompoms and bleat "our side good, their side bad".
If that is the lens through which you view US politics you really need new glasses.
US local and federal politics has always been partisan, to a degree corrupt and often self agrandising. Just look at the notion of the Kennedy's stealing the 1960 election or Bush manipulating the strands of government for a very controversial win in 2000.
They are all at it, gerrymandering electoral boundaries, suppressing votes, conducting foreign policy to enrich the first family and their friends. None of that is good or worthy but compared to what we are seeing now they are but trifles. You are looking at a power grab by the executive on a scale not seen before. Where it leads, nobody knows. However what is clear is the alignment of Trump's cabinet with Putin's Kremlin
Ukraine is going to be the new 1939 Poland, isn't it, partitioned and with its assets and wealth parcelled up between two superpowers?
The Democrats need to choose which battle to fight. They can't accuse Trump of waging a war on working families while they use the courts to block deportations.
The Democrats are not using the courts to block deportations. That's the ACLU principally.
There is a regrettable tendency on PB to see any action taking in opposition to Republican action as "the Democrats". The US is a big, complicated country. Various organisations (e.g., ACLU) take actions. Various individuals (e.g., Jean Carroll) take actions. Even when politicians are involved, there are state politicians with separate agendas to those in Congress, etc. The US does not have the same top-down control of political parties that we see in the UK.
And Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat! He sits as an independent.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
They had a compelling platform but abandoned it in the name of progress. The arguments against free trade and an influx of foreign labour have been vindicated so they just need to relearn them.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
I don't agree at all. This is rightwing-populist power grab, that will only be defeated by equally mobilising leftwing populism.
I don't agree at all that Sanders is too mad, I mean. He's the only kind of figure to have purchase in places like working-class Iowa and Michigan, where he's beginning to draw in thousands of people open to him.
And his "madness" would make him a bit right wing for the UK Labour Party.
This is the guy whose idea is to gradually extend Medicaid and Medicare to cover more and more people, leading to an eventual government insurance option for healthcare.
If you stood up at the Labour Party conference to suggest that, you'd probably be thrown out.
Bernie is - politically speaking in the American context - mad. And I’m saying that as someone who backed him against Hilary Clinton in 2016. Personally I like his politics an awful lot. I like that he rages against injustice and calls it how he sees it. We need more people in politics like Bernie Sanders.
But - and it’s a big but - there is no way he can get elected. Not now. Which makes him pointless.
If social security collapses, and governmental systems start to fail, as they are already starting to, I think he could be elected, quite easily.
People look to an equally radical response, in those kind of situations.
Particularly as it will have revealed that tech billionaires are just as incompetent as anyone else. Just with excessive greed, more money and none of that pesky morality ordinary humans tend to have. Perhaps they ought to be made not billionaires?
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
Can I help you out of your deep hole of denial ?
We were told that Joe Biden wasn't senile.
We were told that Hunter Biden wasn't a criminal.
We were told that Joe Biden would not pardon Hunter Biden.
We were told it was good that centrists like Manchin and Sinema had been driven out of the Dem party.
We were told it was good that Vance was mocked for having a deprived upbringing.
The Dems need to take a good look at how they've repeatedly fucked up and clear out those who enabled it.
But that would require some honesty and hard work wouldn't it.
And its so much easier to wave the pompoms and bleat "our side good, their side bad".
If that is the lens through which you view US politics you really need new glasses.
US local and federal politics has always been partisan, to a degree corrupt and often self agrandising. Just look at the notion of the Kennedy's stealing the 1960 election or Bush manipulating the strands of government for a very controversial win in 2000.
They are all at it, gerrymandering electoral boundaries, suppressing votes, conducting foreign policy to enrich the first family and their friends. None of that is good or worthy but compared to what we are seeing now they are but trifles. You are looking at a power grab by the executive on a scale not seen before. Where it leads, nobody knows. However what is clear is the alignment of Trump's cabinet with Putin's Kremlin
Ukraine is going to be the new 1939 Poland, isn't it, partitioned and with its assets and wealth parcelled up between two superpowers?
More like Ukraine is going to be the new 1686 Ukraine, when it was partitioned between Russia and the west by the ironically named Eternal Peace Treaty.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
I thought you'd written that he's less racist than the average Etonian.
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
A few weeks ago, we were discussing the fact that we weren't quite at the point where the rule of law had broken down in the US, and there were still legal constraints on the Trump administration.
After the deportation flights - not just the fact that they ignored the order, but the fact that the AG issued a note suggesting that they did not believe the court had the jurisdiction to make the order, and carried on regardless - are we still hiding behind a fig leaf that the courts have any power over this Presidency?
Depends what happens next.
If the administration is effectively sanctioned for ignoring the law, then the rule of law still holds.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
But excusing things as being "entirely a product of its time" means that we can't criticise anyone in the past at all. It's also ahistorical as it pretends there was no contemporary criticism. For example, in The Leo Amery Diaries: 1929-1945 Amery (Churchill's own Secretary of State for India) wrote "on the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane" and that he did not "see much difference between [Churchill's] outlook and Hitler's"
I think we need better history! We can recognise that people are a product of their time, but we can also do better recognising that their time probably included a multitude of viewpoints, as ours does too.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
1992 Dems - 'it's the economy, stupid'
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttigieg appears to disagree. It looks like he's going for a Presidential run in 2028.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
Can I help you out of your deep hole of denial ?
We were told that Joe Biden wasn't senile.
We were told that Hunter Biden wasn't a criminal.
We were told that Joe Biden would not pardon Hunter Biden.
We were told it was good that centrists like Manchin and Sinema had been driven out of the Dem party.
We were told it was good that Vance was mocked for having a deprived upbringing.
The Dems need to take a good look at how they've repeatedly fucked up and clear out those who enabled it.
But that would require some honesty and hard work wouldn't it.
And its so much easier to wave the pompoms and bleat "our side good, their side bad".
If that is the lens through which you view US politics you really need new glasses.
US local and federal politics has always been partisan, to a degree corrupt and often self agrandising. Just look at the notion of the Kennedy's stealing the 1960 election or Bush manipulating the strands of government for a very controversial win in 2000.
They are all at it, gerrymandering electoral boundaries, suppressing votes, conducting foreign policy to enrich the first family and their friends. None of that is good or worthy but compared to what we are seeing now they are but trifles. You are looking at a power grab by the executive on a scale not seen before. Where it leads, nobody knows. However what is clear is the alignment of Trump's cabinet with Putin's Kremlin
Ukraine is going to be the new 1939 Poland, isn't it, partitioned and with its assets and wealth parcelled up between two superpowers?
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
That's a pretty bizarre claim.
Ironically it's a pretty racist claim.
No, it's an empirical claim.
When was the last time you were in Estonia?
It's not too far from William's cloudbase somewhere above the forner Leningrad.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
I thought you'd written that he's less racist than the average Etonian.
Possibly also true. As far as I know he's a race-blind civic nationalist who doesn't like Islam, but not a white supremacist.
CNN report on the Brown Univ deportation case, mentioned above. It seems to me that UK media, including BBC, are giving scant attention to the internal USA political crisis, as opposed to the international dimension, though there is (for the moment) lots of USA media/social media covering it. But in fact this USA takeover by crooks is potentially the biggest story for years.
"Her lawyer, Thomas S Brown, also said, as reported by The Providence Journal, there had been some “wrinkle” with her visa application"
We have seen these stories related to UK time and time again reported by the Guardian where the wrinkle is glossed over e.g. the granny from Singapore who kept a home in Singapore, had family there, went to and from Singapore on a regular basis and only when her husband died did she try and claim she had to remain in the UK because she couldn't manage in Singapore.
Mrs U works a lot in the US. You don't try and go to the US for work with a "wrinkle" in your visa. The border agents can be absolute brutal in their reading of the rules (regardless of who is president). She has seen colleagues be turned around in the past for not having all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
I think I would wait for what said wrinkle was.
That's all fair, but the court said don't deport her while we work this out, and the administration deported her anyway.
From what I've read, the more mainstream Democrats, in America, are keeping quiet for a combination of reasons.
They're very wary , of playing into the typical pre-fascist playbook, where opponents are immediately recast as the old elites "obstructing the will of the people."
Related to that, they think they can later step in when everything has broken down, unscathed, unassociatedn and without having enabled it all in any way, and people will then look to them.
But this is to misunderstand how fast the American neo-monarchists are trying to rip up its whole constitutional framework, not just actually the federal government.
Bernie has the right idea. In his address below, he says that "this will not be solved in Washington. It will be solved in your community, and yours, over there, and yours, and yours." This is a very good rhetorical approach, as it mobilises people and simultaneously disarms the Trumpist calling cards of "the swamo", and "the old elites."
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
The problem the Dems face is misinformation. There are people who honestly believe the bullshit like "the Biden crime family" because they've been overwhelmed by a sewage pipe of lies from Fox News, OANN, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan etc.
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
The problem the Dems face is misinformation. There are people who honestly believe the bullshit like "the Biden crime family" because they've been overwhelmed by a sewage pipe of lies from Fox News, OANN, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan etc.
I did see an argument that one of the problems Trusk is facing (without knowing it) is that they live entirely inside their own disinformation bubble. They think everything they do is wonderful and popular.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
The Democrats have a great recent track record of winning the popular vote. They suffer from the Senate and thus the electoral college overweighting some small Republican states. In 2024, the incumbent suffered because of a period of high inflation, as we saw in numerous countries.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
They had a compelling platform but abandoned it in the name of progress. The arguments against free trade and an influx of foreign labour have been vindicated so they just need to relearn them.
I'm bullish on the Dems next time assuming there is a free and fair next time. Because what is rapidly being vindicated beyond all reasonable doubt are the arguments against this Trump manifestation of the GOP.
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
Perhaps it is time to look at the question in a different way? Why is paid employment in the UK so uniquely unpopular, unfulfilling and unattractive?
See all those seeking to retire very early indeed.
Some of that is the pernicious "retirement industry" that wants people to believe that once they reach a point in their life they are on permanent holiday, when the reality is often anything but. People of all ages should be encouraged to find work that is productive and fulfilling, and , where they desire it, flexible to enable them to maybe spend more time with family or travelling. Encouraging fit and able people to do nothing is totally dumb.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
1992 Dems - 'it's the economy, stupid'
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
Invading Canada Is Not Advisable We’ve tried before. It didn’t work out.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/us-canada-relations-trump/682046/ When I served as counselor of the State Department, I advised the secretary of state about America’s wars with Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and al-Qaeda. I spent a good deal of time visiting battlefields in the Middle East and Afghanistan as well as shaping strategy in Washington. But when I left government service in 2009, I eagerly resumed work on a book that dealt with America’s most durable, and in many ways most effective and important, enemy: Canada...
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
1992 Dems - 'it's the economy, stupid'
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
In 2024 the Dems extended that loss of support to Hispanic working class voters.
There is a need for the Democrats to rebuild a successful voter coalition. I think some of the culture war stuff is a little overstated - Harris didn’t make it a large part of her platform - but it is true that the perception and indeed the reality in certain places is that the Democrats have been focussing on these kinds of issues to the detriment of the bread and butter issues that matter to most voters.
The reason why populist politics has taken off in the West is because, at the very basic level, many people do not feel their politicians are interested in their concerns and they do not feel that they have a stake in society. They feel increasingly pushed to the margins, left behind economically, priced out of a good standard of living, and told that their concerns are not legitimate.
This actually transcends the left-right spectrum but has been more deftly exploited by the populist right.
Mainstream parties are still trying to work out how to counter this.
I suspect that the Democrats might actually benefit from talking more radically about how to get the econony and society working for everyone rather than sticking to their usual pitch.
CNN report on the Brown Univ deportation case, mentioned above. It seems to me that UK media, including BBC, are giving scant attention to the internal USA political crisis, as opposed to the international dimension, though there is (for the moment) lots of USA media/social media covering it. But in fact this USA takeover by crooks is potentially the biggest story for years.
"Her lawyer, Thomas S Brown, also said, as reported by The Providence Journal, there had been some “wrinkle” with her visa application"
We have seen these stories related to UK time and time again reported by the Guardian where the wrinkle is glossed over e.g. the granny from Singapore who kept a home in Singapore, had family there, went to and from Singapore on a regular basis and only when her husband died did she try and claim she had to remain in the UK because she couldn't manage in Singapore.
Mrs U works a lot in the US. You don't try and go to the US for work with a "wrinkle" in your visa. The border agents can be absolute brutal in their reading of the rules (regardless of who is president). She has seen colleagues be turned around in the past for not having all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
I think I would wait for what said wrinkle was.
That's all fair, but the court said don't deport her while we work this out, and the administration deported her anyway.
My point was more pointing out in pretty much all the reporting they are missing out this rather important detail
Also it hasn't actually been found to be fact that they have disobeyed a judge here. A family member claims that was the case, the administration hasn't presented their case yet. And then, we don't know if conspiracy by the administration or cock-up. US immigration are notoriously trigger happy when it comes to turning people around at airports for not having their papers in order even going back many years. It happens every day.
Despite all the rhetoric, the actual figures for deportations are down on Biden for comparable months.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
They had a compelling platform but abandoned it in the name of progress. The arguments against free trade and an influx of foreign labour have been vindicated so they just need to relearn them.
I'm bullish on the Dems next time assuming there is a free and fair next time. Because what is rapidly being vindicated beyond all reasonable doubt are the arguments against this Trump manifestation of the GOP.
His supporters have switched seamlessly from saying the Democrats were utterly alarmist to predict what he's doing ... to claiming an unquestionable mandate for it.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
When did you first have your brain washed by the MAGA nutters, or was it completely voluntary? MAGA became obsessed by Hunter because it was a useful distraction against the reality that they, MAGA, have a criminal leader. No doubt you will soon be suggesting that Russia didn't invade Ukraine or any other factually incorrect nonsense spouted by the intellectual pigmies that now run the US.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
I don't agree at all. This is rightwing-populist power grab, that will only be defeated by equally mobilising leftwing populism.
I don't agree at all that Sanders is too mad, I mean. He's the only kind of figure to have purchase in places like working-class Iowa and Michigan, where he's beginning to draw in thousands of people open to him.
And his "madness" would make him a bit right wing for the UK Labour Party.
This is the guy whose idea is to gradually extend Medicaid and Medicare to cover more and more people, leading to an eventual government insurance option for healthcare.
If you stood up at the Labour Party conference to suggest that, you'd probably be thrown out.
Bernie is - politically speaking in the American context - mad. And I’m saying that as someone who backed him against Hilary Clinton in 2016. Personally I like his politics an awful lot. I like that he rages against injustice and calls it how he sees it. We need more people in politics like Bernie Sanders.
But - and it’s a big but - there is no way he can get elected. Not now. Which makes him pointless.
If social security collapses, and governmental systems start to fail, as they are already starting to, I think he could be elected, quite easily.
People look to an equally radical response, in those kind of situations.
Particularly as it will have revealed that tech billionaires are just as incompetent as anyone else. Just with excessive greed, more money and none of that pesky morality ordinary humans tend to have. Perhaps they ought to be made not billionaires?
There is a question-mark over whether people like Thiel and Andreesen actively want state systems to fail, though. They think they're clapped out.
CNN report on the Brown Univ deportation case, mentioned above. It seems to me that UK media, including BBC, are giving scant attention to the internal USA political crisis, as opposed to the international dimension, though there is (for the moment) lots of USA media/social media covering it. But in fact this USA takeover by crooks is potentially the biggest story for years.
"Her lawyer, Thomas S Brown, also said, as reported by The Providence Journal, there had been some “wrinkle” with her visa application"
We have seen these stories related to UK time and time again reported by the Guardian where the wrinkle is glossed over e.g. the granny from Singapore who kept a home in Singapore, had family there, went to and from Singapore on a regular basis and only when her husband died did she try and claim she had to remain in the UK because she couldn't manage in Singapore.
Mrs U works a lot in the US. You don't try and go to the US for work with a "wrinkle" in your visa. The border agents can be absolute brutal in their reading of the rules (regardless of who is president). She has seen colleagues be turned around in the past for not having all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
I think I would wait for what said wrinkle was.
That's all fair, but the court said don't deport her while we work this out, and the administration deported her anyway.
My point was more pointing out in pretty much all the reporting they are missing out this rather important detail
Also it hasn't actually been found to be fact that they have disobeyed a judge here. A family member claims that was the case, the administration has presented their case yet. And then, we don't know if conspiracy by the administration or cock-up. US immigration are notoriously trigger happy when it comes to turning people around at airports for not having their papers in order even going back many years. It happens every day.
Despite all the rhetoric, the actual figures for deportations are down on Biden for comparable months.
Also possible the court order doesn't apply at the border, only for "real" deportations.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
When did you first have your brain washed by the MAGA nutters, or was it completely voluntary? MAGA became obsessed by Hunter because it was a useful distraction against the reality that they, MAGA, have a criminal leader. No doubt you will soon be suggesting that Russia didn't invade Ukraine or any other factually incorrect nonsense spouted by the intellectual pigmies that now run the US.
Are you
1. Denying that Joe Biden was obviously gaga and the family (and inner Democratic circle) kept it hidden for months if not years?
Or
2. Hunter Biden is a convicted criminal?
I hope not, because both are provably and obviously true, so that would mean you are arguing with reality, and I would therefore stop reading your comments altogether, by adjudging you insane. I already SKIM. Consider this a last warning before I give you a yellow card, UPGRADEABLE TO RED
CNN report on the Brown Univ deportation case, mentioned above. It seems to me that UK media, including BBC, are giving scant attention to the internal USA political crisis, as opposed to the international dimension, though there is (for the moment) lots of USA media/social media covering it. But in fact this USA takeover by crooks is potentially the biggest story for years.
"Her lawyer, Thomas S Brown, also said, as reported by The Providence Journal, there had been some “wrinkle” with her visa application"
We have seen these stories related to UK time and time again reported by the Guardian where the wrinkle is glossed over e.g. the granny from Singapore who kept a home in Singapore, had family there, went to and from Singapore on a regular basis and only when her husband died did she try and claim she had to remain in the UK because she couldn't manage in Singapore.
Mrs U works a lot in the US. You don't try and go to the US for work with a "wrinkle" in your visa. The border agents can be absolute brutal in their reading of the rules (regardless of who is president). She has seen colleagues be turned around in the past for not having all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
I think I would wait for what said wrinkle was.
That's all fair, but the court said don't deport her while we work this out, and the administration deported her anyway.
My point was more pointing out in pretty much all the reporting they are missing out this rather important detail
Also it hasn't actually been found to be fact that they have disobeyed a judge here. A family member claims that was the case, the administration has presented their case yet. And then, we don't know if conspiracy by the administration or cock-up. US immigration are notoriously trigger happy when it comes to turning people around at airports for not having their papers in order even going back many years. It happens every day.
Despite all the rhetoric, the actual figures for deportations are down on Biden for comparable months.
Also possible the court order doesn't apply at the border, only for "real" deportations.
We know Trump plays fast and loose with the law. And the media are desperate to find a sympathetic story for how his policies on deportations are not fair. Is this the one, I don't know, but alarm bells ring when a lawyer goes yeah, but no, but yeah, small wrinkle in the paperwork and then the media don't report that important aspect. When it comes to working visas and the US there isn't really such a thing as a small wrinkle, they take the dotting of i's and crossing of t's incredibly seriously. And even having a visa doesn't guarantee entry.
We have see this in the UK all the time from Mail and Guardian from both sides of immigration cases that don't give the full story.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
This is so powerful coming (as it does) from somebody who despite the lurid Trumpian language parroting a stream of Trumpian talking points is no Trump supporter.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
This is so powerful coming (as it does) from somebody who despite the lurid Trumpian language parroting a stream of Trumpian talking points is no Trump supporter.
I see you are pioneering a new form of cognitive dissonance
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
When did you first have your brain washed by the MAGA nutters, or was it completely voluntary? MAGA became obsessed by Hunter because it was a useful distraction against the reality that they, MAGA, have a criminal leader. No doubt you will soon be suggesting that Russia didn't invade Ukraine or any other factually incorrect nonsense spouted by the intellectual pigmies that now run the US.
Are you
1. Denying that Joe Biden was obviously gaga and the family (and inner Democratic circle) kept it hidden for months if not years?
Or
2. Hunter Biden is a convicted criminal?
I hope not, because both are provably and obviously true, so that would mean you are arguing with reality, and I would therefore stop reading your comments altogether, by adjudging you insane. I already SKIM. Consider this a last warning before I give you a yellow card, UPGRADEABLE TO RED
You seem to have forgotten he was prosecuted during his father's administration.
Chances of any such thing happening under Trump, approx. zero.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
When did you first have your brain washed by the MAGA nutters, or was it completely voluntary? MAGA became obsessed by Hunter because it was a useful distraction against the reality that they, MAGA, have a criminal leader. No doubt you will soon be suggesting that Russia didn't invade Ukraine or any other factually incorrect nonsense spouted by the intellectual pigmies that now run the US.
Although it could just be a controversial narrative designed to trigger posters Leon likes to trigger. He's triggered this poster. Life is too short to engage with such bollocks.
On more important matters, today's the day I fly to Uruguay
BUT IS IT
Having previously arrived TWO DAYS early for this flight, I am now suspicious of all dates, times, appointments. How do I KNOW this is Monday?? Might it not be Thursday, and everyone is lying to me? What if I am ALREADY IN Montevideo, and it just looks a lot like Camden Town, up by the park?
Normalcy bias. I suspect that for most of the Tories reign post 2019 they would have been expected to win most seats too, simply because they started off with so many more than anyone else, as Labour do now.
But our politics has got more volatile and Labour does not start from a strong position in terms of share of the vote. It may be that the split on the right gives them the same tactical advantage that the Labour/SDP split gave Maggie but I wouldn't count on that just yet.
It has been questioned how much the Labour/SDP split benefited Thatcher. Many SDP supporters preferred her over Labour, so without the SDP, probably would have voted Conservative.
The question is whether the same applies today to the Reform UK/Conservative split. Can you just stick the Ref + Con vote shares together?
I was an SDP supporter and member and would probably have voted Conservative if they were not there so I fit your example but in my experience the SDP were primarily Labour stalwarts who were dismayed by the antics of the Bennite factions within Labour.
It is certainly not as simple as putting Reform and the Tories together. I can't imagine a scenario where I would vote Reform, for example. But it did allow Labour to win a lot of seats on a very low share of the vote and greatly exaggerated the FPTP effect. All I am saying is that that might happen again and it might not.
Very interesting to see how selective some people's memories are. They can even talk about the creation of the SDP without even once mentioning the Liberal Party......
The fact is that the Liberals were doing very well at that time, following the 1979 election and the advent of Thatcher. Roy Jenkins, returning from Europe, was on the point of becoming a member of the Liberal Party, but David Steel persuaded him to found the SDP instead, and split the Labour Party. This worked very well up to a point, but the expected Conservative wets did not turn up, and so the subsequent folding of the Liberal Party into the mixture did not happen either. Not until 1989 anyway, and by then the SDP was past its glory days.
In practice, every SDP local party was different. A lot of them were dominated by the "political virgins", who were happy enough to work with the Liberals and follow their lead in campaigning. Others were dominated by ex-Labour thugs, whose primary objective was to destroy the Liberal Party. Since these tended to be in areas where they traditionally weighed the Labour vote, they did not see any need to campaign and organise, and inevitably petered out.
I agree that it varied from area to area. Dundee and Angus had never been a strong area for the Liberals ( unlike NE Fife) and to be honest they didn’t figure greatly in our thinking. It was different when you went to Conference or a bye election of course.
Similarly, when the amalgamation happened very few Liberals were added to our activist base. I’ve no doubt other areas such as the borders or the north were very different.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
That's a pretty bizarre claim.
Ironically it's a pretty racist claim.
No, it's an empirical claim.
Please share this empirical data on how racist the average Estonian is.
Please share your empirical methodology to show that Tommy is objectively less racist than that average.
This is the US law which Trump relied on for the deportations. The government argues, quite literally, that it cannot even be examined by the courts.
Perviously it has been invoked three times in the last couple of centuries, each time when the US was actually at war.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
Perhaps it is time to look at the question in a different way? Why is paid employment in the UK so uniquely unpopular, unfulfilling and unattractive?
See all those seeking to retire very early indeed.
Some of that is the pernicious "retirement industry" that wants people to believe that once they reach a point in their life they are on permanent holiday, when the reality is often anything but. People of all ages should be encouraged to find work that is productive and fulfilling, and , where they desire it, flexible to enable them to maybe spend more time with family or travelling. Encouraging fit and able people to do nothing is totally dumb.
Agreed. I worked on beyond pension age because I enjoyed my work, had decent bosses, good clients and was able to work flexibly. If I had been in a poorly paid shit job, with bullying bosses and working long hours for a grasping company, I would have thought differently. If we want people to work longer, we need to ensure that they are treated fairly and flexibly.
This is the US law which Trump relied on for the deportations. The government argues, quite literally, that it cannot even be examined by the courts.
Perviously it has been invoked three times in the last couple of centuries, each time when the US was actually at war.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
When did you first have your brain washed by the MAGA nutters, or was it completely voluntary? MAGA became obsessed by Hunter because it was a useful distraction against the reality that they, MAGA, have a criminal leader. No doubt you will soon be suggesting that Russia didn't invade Ukraine or any other factually incorrect nonsense spouted by the intellectual pigmies that now run the US.
Are you
1. Denying that Joe Biden was obviously gaga and the family (and inner Democratic circle) kept it hidden for months if not years?
Or
2. Hunter Biden is a convicted criminal?
I hope not, because both are provably and obviously true, so that would mean you are arguing with reality, and I would therefore stop reading your comments altogether, by adjudging you insane. I already SKIM. Consider this a last warning before I give you a yellow card, UPGRADEABLE TO RED
You seem to have forgotten he was prosecuted during his father's administration.
Chances of any such thing happening under Trump, approx. zero.
Joe Biden said on dozens of occasions "I will not pardon my son, that's not the way Democrats do things, we believe in the courts" - and on this he had the vocal support of the entire American Left, gloating in their moral superiority
"In the aftermath of his conviction, the White House immediately made it clear that he could not expect a presidential pardon from his father.
"In an interview with ABC in June, when asked whether he had “ruled out a pardon” for his son, Biden replied: “Yes.”
"Biden also told reporters at a G7 summit in June: "I said I'd abide by the jury decision, and I will do that. And I will not pardon him.”
"As recently as 7 November - just two days after Donald Trump clinched his return to the White House - Biden administration officials were still insisting that the president had no intention of pardoning his son"
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
The Democrats have a great recent track record of winning the popular vote. They suffer from the Senate and thus the electoral college overweighting some small Republican states. In 2024, the incumbent suffered because of a period of high inflation, as we saw in numerous countries.
The electoral bias last presidential election was about 0.2% to Trump, the lowest electoral college bias since 1988
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
That's a pretty bizarre claim.
Ironically it's a pretty racist claim.
No, it's an empirical claim.
Please share this empirical data on how racist the average Estonian is.
Please share your empirical methodology to show that Tommy is objectively less racist than that average.
Have you heard of this thing called the Holocaust, in particular how it played out in the Baltic States?
The sins of the father should not be visited on the son (thank God, or I am TOTALLY screwed) nonetheless it is a pointer
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
The Democrats have a great recent track record of winning the popular vote. They suffer from the Senate and thus the electoral college overweighting some small Republican states. In 2024, the incumbent suffered because of a period of high inflation, as we saw in numerous countries.
The electoral bias last presidential election was about 0.2% to Trump, the lowest electoral college bias since 1988
Currently, Americans have no sensible choice of who to vote for. It’s the equivalent of a choice between Truss and Corbyn, without even a Lib Dem alternative.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
They had a compelling platform but abandoned it in the name of progress. The arguments against free trade and an influx of foreign labour have been vindicated so they just need to relearn them.
I'm bullish on the Dems next time assuming there is a free and fair next time. Because what is rapidly being vindicated beyond all reasonable doubt are the arguments against this Trump manifestation of the GOP.
His supporters have switched seamlessly from saying the Democrats were utterly alarmist to predict what he's doing ... to claiming an unquestionable mandate for it.
Yes, slick work by them. This is what all those voters wanted. The country turned into a toy for Donald Trump.
As Trump and MAGA become ever more demonstrably horrific, I’ve seen this trend for their supporters to shout ever louder about the (fictional) evils of the Democrats, the “Biden crime family”, the Clintons’ supposed evils, etc. It seems like a desperate attempt to avoid talking about the obvious problems today by repeating the greatest hits of disinformation past.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
The Democrats have a great recent track record of winning the popular vote. They suffer from the Senate and thus the electoral college overweighting some small Republican states. In 2024, the incumbent suffered because of a period of high inflation, as we saw in numerous countries.
The electoral bias last presidential election was about 0.2% to Trump, the lowest electoral college bias since 1988
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
The Democrats have a great recent track record of winning the popular vote. They suffer from the Senate and thus the electoral college overweighting some small Republican states. In 2024, the incumbent suffered because of a period of high inflation, as we saw in numerous countries.
The electoral bias last presidential election was about 0.2% to Trump, the lowest electoral college bias since 1988
Currently, Americans have no sensible choice of who to vote for. It’s the equivalent of a choice between Truss and Corbyn, without even a Lib Dem alternative.
Of course there was a choice. Donald Trump or absolutely anyone else.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttigieg appears to disagree. It looks like he's going for a Presidential run in 2028.
He could be the most articulate President since JFK although he might struggle to find the same quality of speech writers as Teddy Sorensen and the like.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
Makes more sense if you replace Estonian with Etonian.
Never expected that you would propose ethnic cleansing!
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
1992 Dems - 'it's the economy, stupid'
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
1992 Dems - 'it's the economy, stupid'
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
In 2024 the Dems extended that loss of support to Hispanic working class voters.
There is a need for the Democrats to rebuild a successful voter coalition. I think some of the culture war stuff is a little overstated - Harris didn’t make it a large part of her platform - but it is true that the perception and indeed the reality in certain places is that the Democrats have been focussing on these kinds of issues to the detriment of the bread and butter issues that matter to most voters.
The reason why populist politics has taken off in the West is because, at the very basic level, many people do not feel their politicians are interested in their concerns and they do not feel that they have a stake in society. They feel increasingly pushed to the margins, left behind economically, priced out of a good standard of living, and told that their concerns are not legitimate.
This actually transcends the left-right spectrum but has been more deftly exploited by the populist right.
Mainstream parties are still trying to work out how to counter this.
I suspect that the Democrats might actually benefit from talking more radically about how to get the econony and society working for everyone rather than sticking to their usual pitch.
I agree but it's a big challenge. The populist right have something in their armoury that the left do not. Rather than having to do the hard work to come up with policies that will materially benefit the sort of people you describe they buy them off with cheap appeals to nostalgic xenophobic nationalism and sadly this seems to work.
This is the US law which Trump relied on for the deportations. The government argues, quite literally, that it cannot even be examined by the courts.
Perviously it has been invoked three times in the last couple of centuries, each time when the US was actually at war.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
Errr…. I think I detect a problem.
Go on.
Well, the US is not at war with El Salvador so the conditions for the operation of the power simply don’t exist.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
I thought you'd written that he's less racist than the average Etonian.
Possibly also true. As far as I know he's a race-blind civic nationalist who doesn't like Islam, but not a white supremacist.
You’re talking about Tommy Robinson here? He’s a racist, and a violent criminal, and a fraudster.
What the Democrats primarily need is someone who can articulate a confident and cohesive vision for America, while concisely and charismatically being able to rebut Trumpism.
The problem they have at the moment, I think, is that they are too associated (rightly or wrongly) with the whiff of managed American decline and a perception that they are too far removed from the average American. They need someone with the common touch, who can energise but actually authentically sell a future. They are so vulnerable to the Trumpian claims that they are out of touch, incompetent establishment figures and they need to combat it. They could do with a few more AOCs I think - not necessarily for her politics but just a bit more of an authentic backstory and vision.
You hear about decline but the US is amongst the richest countries on Earth with a staggeringly resilient and dynamic economy. Its biggest problem is gross inequality such that large numbers of people don't share in its success. It ought to be possible for the Dems to develop a strong platform which addresses this. If they do it will stand in positive contrast to the GOP who seek to patronise and exploit the 'left behind' rather than help them.
1992 Dems - 'it's the economy, stupid'
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
Makes more sense if you replace Estonian with Etonian.
Never expected that you would propose ethnic cleansing!
😉
Eton is about 20% minority these days - all those darned furriners with money.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 20m 🚨🚨🚨 So we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy.
Trump has done some mad stupid shit these last weeks, but deporting violent Venezuelan gangsters to El Salvador is not one of them. It’s also bound to be popular. Are the Dems really gonna fight on THIS hill?
Putting aside who was being deported are you comfortable with governments ignoring the courts ? This time you agree with the decision because of who’s being deported . It doesn’t matter if the decision is popular or not . Next time it might be a decision you disagree with , what if Labour just ignored the courts here . Would you be okay with that ?
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
That speech is one of my favourite of all time. And I believe was also a favourite of the excellent Cyclefree, late of this parish.
It is a good speech, though of course the real Thomas More was happy with rigging the legal system to burn people who had slightly different views on trans issues.
(Transsubstantiation in this case).
Oh absolutely. To my mind he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work...
More certainly was unpleasant to our modern sensibilities. An unpleasant bigot and a royal sycophant.
But given when and where he was born, anything else would have been truly astonishing. The notion of religious tolerance barely existed in the sixteenth century, with the odd exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and stirrings in France towards the end, and that was only after some terrible civil wars. And people of those years had much more ingrained respect for hierarchy than we do.
More's murderous intolerance, like Julius Caesar's slaves or Churchill's ingrained racism, was entirely a product of its time. So, just as revering him excessively is ridiculous, I'm not sure if we can really call him a "nasty piece of work" on those grounds.
And of course he'd have regarded us, with our lack of respect for social hierarchy, tolerance of feminism and sodomy and secularism, with just as much uncomprehending disdain as we view him.
I suppose my point, not an original one, is that judging historical figures by today's standards is problematic.
Obviously this is right, but we tend to look at the past through the lives of very powerful people with a lot to lose in a fragile world. These are few in number. Looking at other people gives a different sense. To take some at random. I get no sense that Pepys or Chaucer thought that burning people for thinking different thoughts was fine, or the author of Piers Plowman, or Julian of Norwich.
Both the past and ther present are highly nuanced.
Indeed, and there were people, even in the late 19th century, that did not regard the white race as inherently superior. You can generally find unconventional opinions if you look hard enough.
But I still don't judge Churchill morally for racist views, or Thomas More for being a murderous bigot, because the overwhelming consensus in their eras was for jingoistic imperialism and religious fanaticism respectively.
Being a product of your times, like More or Churchill or 90% of us, is understandable and morally neutral. Falling below them (for example burning whole towns of innocent people because a few of them are Cathars or committing ethnic genocide) is reprehensible. And rising above them is extraodinary.
And, because people are complex, the same person can rise above their era in one sphere, or at one time, and fall below it in another respect. And because they live for decades, opinions that were standard when they were young are often outdated when they are old. Churchill's sense of racial superiority, which was normal enough in the 1890s, was even in the 1920s beginning to perturb his Cabinet colleagues and by the time he died was much less acceptable in polite society, even if still held by a large portion of the country.
And likely still held by many Reform and most Tommy Robinson supporters
Even though the IQ levels of the Tom-eh supporters are clear evidence against white superiority.
He's less racist than the average Estonian.
I thought you'd written that he's less racist than the average Etonian.
Possibly also true. As far as I know he's a race-blind civic nationalist who doesn't like Islam, but not a white supremacist.
You’re talking about Tommy Robinson here? He’s a racist, and a violent criminal, and a fraudster.
Put what you said through the MAGA filter.
"racist, and a violent criminal, and a fraudster" comes out as "race-blind civic nationalist"
As Trump and MAGA become ever more demonstrably horrific, I’ve seen this trend for their supporters to shout ever louder about the (fictional) evils of the Democrats, the “Biden crime family”, the Clintons’ supposed evils, etc. It seems like a desperate attempt to avoid talking about the obvious problems today by repeating the greatest hits of disinformation past.
You think Hunter Biden's CONFESSED crimes, Joe Biden swearng never to pardon him (then pardoning him), then the pardons given to the entire Biden family, then the pardon given to Antony "lableak" Fauci, then the revelation that the Bidens and elite Democrats lied to the Americans for years about Biden's mental health (thereby paving the way for Trump) - you think those are all "fictional"?
I mean, you are as deluded as a QANONer. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise from an obscure midbrow twat like you who still shouts "it came from the wet market!!!" like the last embarrassing drunk on the nightbus, but still, for the rest of PB which may not be as absurd as you, this stuff is worth pointing out
Why? Because it is the context. It is one reason Trump is elected (despite being an oaf) and one reason opposition to him (and his many grievous ills) may be harder to organise. A lot of American voters (see the polls) think the Dems are easily as bad as the Republicans - even now - and with reason
No doubt I will be banned again soon for daring to make these points. But then PB will be reduced to this echo chanber of bedwetters, moaning haplessly about The Donald, and with zero insight
There is a bloke near the fix camera wearing a shirt that even TSE would not wear who was definitely will have been taking advantage of such offerings....
As Trump and MAGA become ever more demonstrably horrific, I’ve seen this trend for their supporters to shout ever louder about the (fictional) evils of the Democrats, the “Biden crime family”, the Clintons’ supposed evils, etc. It seems like a desperate attempt to avoid talking about the obvious problems today by repeating the greatest hits of disinformation past.
You think Hunter Biden's CONFESSED crimes, Joe Biden swearng never to pardon him (then pardoning him), then the pardons given to the entire Biden family, then the pardon given to Antony "lableak" Fauci, then the revelation that the Bidens and elite Democrats lied to the Americans for years about Biden's mental health (thereby paving the way for Trump) - you think those are all "fictional"?
I mean, you are as deluded as a QANONer. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise from an obscure midbrow twat like you who still shouts "it came from the wet market!!!" like the last embarrassing drunk on the nightbus, but still, for the rest of PB which may not be as absurd as you, this stuff is worth pointing out
Why? Because it is the context. It is one reason Trump is elected (despite being an oaf) and one reason opposition to him (and his many grievous ills) may be harder to organise. A lot of American voters (see the polls) think the Dems are easily as bad as the Republicans - even now - and with reason
No doubt I will be banned again soon for daring to make these points. But then PB will be reduced to this echo chanber of bedwetters, moaning haplessly about The Donald, and with zero insight
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
Bernie is too mad to do that. The DNC needs to find a straight version of Pete Buttigieg. With a pretty wife and all American name. Pete is sensationally good. But he’s gat, and appalling as it is I think that’s enough to sink him as a post-Trump contender.
Assuming there are any post-Trump contenders…
Buttgieg was also mediocre in office and was one of the liars who said that Biden was good for another four years.
The Dems need a clean break from those involved in the administration of the Biden crime family.
"Biden crime family"?
Can I help you out of that deep rabbit hole?
The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing. Let’s assume that Hunter Biden is a bad’un. May be true. But his crimes are rather pale in comparison to Trump’s own ongoing criminality.
What kind of person do you have to be to ignore that gargantuan plank sticking out of your eye because you are performatively excited by the splinter in someone else’s eye?
The entire Biden family conspired to disguise the fact that Joe Biden is fucking demented, has been for years, and was unfit to run in 2024. They committed an immense fraud on the American people, on American democracy, and one of the reasons they did it was so that their convicted criminal son, Hunter - still facing some spectacular allegations on top of his confessed crimes - could escape any jail time. Via a presidential pardon
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
When did you first have your brain washed by the MAGA nutters, or was it completely voluntary? MAGA became obsessed by Hunter because it was a useful distraction against the reality that they, MAGA, have a criminal leader. No doubt you will soon be suggesting that Russia didn't invade Ukraine or any other factually incorrect nonsense spouted by the intellectual pigmies that now run the US.
Although it could just be a controversial narrative designed to trigger posters Leon likes to trigger. He's triggered this poster. Life is too short to engage with such bollocks.
I'm beginning to think Sanders is the only hope for America. If he can give tens of more speeches like this, he can mobilise millions. In fact, I see that duplicate version of this are already attracting millions on social media.
He's 83 now. At the next election he will be 87.
In a country that is supposed to be even more youth-obsessed than ours.
If he's a hope it's a frail one.
AOC is Bernie’s heir apparent. Can’t see it working in normal circumstances but she would certainly energise the base in a way Harris didn’t.
She has an undeniable star power. I think she'd probably have to walk back positions like abolishing ICE (or the public mood would need to change)... it might be a bit like Obama... on paper not that strong a candidate vs say Hilary Clinton, but in reality he had something special that persuaded America to vote for him.
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
Perhaps it is time to look at the question in a different way? Why is paid employment in the UK so uniquely unpopular, unfulfilling and unattractive?
See all those seeking to retire very early indeed.
Some of that is the pernicious "retirement industry" that wants people to believe that once they reach a point in their life they are on permanent holiday, when the reality is often anything but. People of all ages should be encouraged to find work that is productive and fulfilling, and , where they desire it, flexible to enable them to maybe spend more time with family or travelling. Encouraging fit and able people to do nothing is totally dumb.
Agreed. I worked on beyond pension age because I enjoyed my work, had decent bosses, good clients and was able to work flexibly. If I had been in a poorly paid shit job, with bullying bosses and working long hours for a grasping company, I would have thought differently. If we want people to work longer, we need to ensure that they are treated fairly and flexibly.
I've just "retired", mid 50s, because I was in a shit job for a large corporation albeit reasonably paid.
I will now be spending more time doing interesting stuff but it won't be a permanent "holiday" by any means. I don't think I could ever slob around.
Perhaps the problem is that social media is selling 'lifestyles' a bit too much, either through people selling things, or just 'friends' pretending their life is better than it is. Expectations are too high.
As Trump and MAGA become ever more demonstrably horrific, I’ve seen this trend for their supporters to shout ever louder about the (fictional) evils of the Democrats, the “Biden crime family”, the Clintons’ supposed evils, etc. It seems like a desperate attempt to avoid talking about the obvious problems today by repeating the greatest hits of disinformation past.
You think Hunter Biden's CONFESSED crimes, Joe Biden swearng never to pardon him (then pardoning him), then the pardons given to the entire Biden family, then the pardon given to Antony "lableak" Fauci, then the revelation that the Bidens and elite Democrats lied to the Americans for years about Biden's mental health (thereby paving the way for Trump) - you think those are all "fictional"?
I mean, you are as deluded as a QANONer. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise from an obscure midbrow twat like you who still shouts "it came from the wet market!!!" like the last embarrassing drunk on the nightbus, but still, for the rest of PB which may not be as absurd as you, this stuff is worth pointing out
Why? Because it is the context. It is one reason Trump is elected (despite being an oaf) and one reason opposition to him (and his many grievous ills) may be harder to organise. A lot of American voters (see the polls) think the Dems are easily as bad as the Republicans - even now - and with reason
No doubt I will be banned again soon for daring to make these points. But then PB will be reduced to this echo chanber of bedwetters, moaning haplessly about The Donald, and with zero insight
rabble rabble rabble
It was nice of you to prove my "echo chamber of bedwetters" point by actually making the noise of a bedwetter, echoed
This is the US law which Trump relied on for the deportations. The government argues, quite literally, that it cannot even be examined by the courts.
Perviously it has been invoked three times in the last couple of centuries, each time when the US was actually at war.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
Errr…. I think I detect a problem.
Go on.
Well, the US is not at war with El Salvador so the conditions for the operation of the power simply don’t exist.
Sorry, a bit obvious, but jeez.
Well, yes. For a moment I thought you might be about to come up with some clever justification.
It's about as naked a power grab as is possible to imagine. The implications run way beyond a few hundred deportees.
Genuine Enabling Law stuff, if they get away with it.
The problem of the Democrats is similar to Labour’s problems here. There is a growing disconnect between their middle class public sector supporters and the working classes they are supposed to represent. The obsessions of the middle classes are simply not shared by the working class and their worries, such as immigration and gang related violence, are thought both vulgar and racist.
In the US those vulgar people are now MAGA supporters and here they are now Reform.
How that coalition is rebuilt is an interesting question in both cases. The middle class consider themselves morally superior because they “care” but what they care about is of little to no interest to those they pretend to represent.
"Business activity dropped significantly in New York State in March... Optimism about the outlook waned considerably for a second consecutive month" @NYFedResearch
'Generation Z are giving up on work, a new study suggests, with almost four in 10 considering leaving their job and ending up on benefits.
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
Perhaps it is time to look at the question in a different way? Why is paid employment in the UK so uniquely unpopular, unfulfilling and unattractive?
See all those seeking to retire very early indeed.
Some of that is the pernicious "retirement industry" that wants people to believe that once they reach a point in their life they are on permanent holiday, when the reality is often anything but. People of all ages should be encouraged to find work that is productive and fulfilling, and , where they desire it, flexible to enable them to maybe spend more time with family or travelling. Encouraging fit and able people to do nothing is totally dumb.
Agreed. I worked on beyond pension age because I enjoyed my work, had decent bosses, good clients and was able to work flexibly. If I had been in a poorly paid shit job, with bullying bosses and working long hours for a grasping company, I would have thought differently. If we want people to work longer, we need to ensure that they are treated fairly and flexibly.
I've just "retired", mid 50s, because I was in a shit job for a large corporation albeit reasonably paid.
I will now be spending more time doing interesting stuff but it won't be a permanent "holiday" by any means. I don't think I could ever slob around.
Perhaps the problem is that social media is selling 'lifestyles' a bit too much, either through people selling things, or just 'friends' pretending their life is better than it is. Expectations are too high.
[This is where I turn in to an atheist Wee Free]
Not in the Flatland.
You become a Peculiar Person .
Unless you are campaigning to abolish the charges for public loos.
Comments
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009071378371313664
If you don’t have Borders, you don’t have a Country!
Otherwise they might notice that, unlike Canada, they can expect to die at 77 not 80.
One interesting stat is that life expectancy in Panama and Mexico are not that far from catching up with the USA.
There is a regrettable tendency on PB to see any action taking in opposition to Republican action as "the Democrats". The US is a big, complicated country. Various organisations (e.g., ACLU) take actions. Various individuals (e.g., Jean Carroll) take actions. Even when politicians are involved, there are state politicians with separate agendas to those in Congress, etc. The US does not have the same top-down control of political parties that we see in the UK.
And Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat! He sits as an independent.
Just with excessive greed, more money and none of that pesky morality ordinary humans tend to have.
Perhaps they ought to be made not billionaires?
PwC warned that a generation of workers were now in danger of permanently drifting out of the jobs market, and identified mental health conditions as a “major driver” of youth worklessness.
It said economic inactivity, where people are neither in work nor looking for a job, was on course to rise further, with 4.4m workers – one in 10 of the overall workforce – now “on the brink of leaving the labour market”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/17/gen-z-risk-benefit-crisis-four-in-10-consider-give-up-work/
If the administration is effectively sanctioned for ignoring the law, then the rule of law still holds.
If they get away with it, the US is fucked.
2024 Dems - trans rights, slavery reparations, unrestricted abortion, more immigration
In 2016 Bill Clinton warned the Dems they were losing working class votes:
Bill Clinton was alarmed by the dropoff in support for his wife among white working class voters, but that his concerns went unheeded within the campaign staff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered:_Inside_Hillary_Clinton's_Doomed_Campaign#Contents
In 2024 the Dems extended that loss of support to Hispanic working class voters.
Europe could say no.
They're very wary , of playing into the typical pre-fascist playbook, where opponents are immediately recast as the old elites "obstructing the will of the people."
Related to that, they think they can later step in when everything has broken down, unscathed, unassociatedn and without having enabled it all in any way, and people will then look to them.
But this is to misunderstand how fast the American neo-monarchists are trying to rip up its whole constitutional framework, not just actually the federal government.
Bernie has the right idea. In his address below, he says that "this will not be solved in Washington. It will be solved in your community, and yours, over there, and yours, and yours." This is a very good rhetorical approach, as it mobilises people and simultaneously disarms the Trumpist calling cards of "the swamo", and "the old elites."
Why is paid employment in the UK so uniquely unpopular, unfulfilling and unattractive?
And, yes, that is a beer being drunk in the morning; no, it’s not my first; and yes, there are a hundred more bottles under the table
I love brewing!
And by doing this the Biden family assured that Trump would get elected. They enabled Trump
So, yeah, calling the Bidens a crime family is quite moderate, in the circs. The only reason they aren't all potentially facing time is because - why? - oh yeah, Biden gave them all yet more of his "pre-emptive pardons"
We’ve tried before. It didn’t work out.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/us-canada-relations-trump/682046/
When I served as counselor of the State Department, I advised the secretary of state about America’s wars with Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and al-Qaeda. I spent a good deal of time visiting battlefields in the Middle East and Afghanistan as well as shaping strategy in Washington. But when I left government service in 2009, I eagerly resumed work on a book that dealt with America’s most durable, and in many ways most effective and important, enemy: Canada...
Great read.
The reason why populist politics has taken off in the West is because, at the very basic level, many people do not feel their politicians are interested in their concerns and they do not feel that they have a stake in society. They feel increasingly pushed to the margins, left behind economically, priced out of a good standard of living, and told that their concerns are not legitimate.
This actually transcends the left-right spectrum but has been more deftly exploited by the populist right.
Mainstream parties are still trying to work out how to counter this.
I suspect that the Democrats might actually benefit from talking more radically about how to get the econony and society working for everyone rather than sticking to their usual pitch.
Also it hasn't actually been found to be fact that they have disobeyed a judge here. A family member claims that was the case, the administration hasn't presented their case yet. And then, we don't know if conspiracy by the administration or cock-up. US immigration are notoriously trigger happy when it comes to turning people around at airports for not having their papers in order even going back many years. It happens every day.
Despite all the rhetoric, the actual figures for deportations are down on Biden for comparable months.
Said no one.
1. Denying that Joe Biden was obviously gaga and the family (and inner Democratic circle) kept it hidden for months if not years?
Or
2. Hunter Biden is a convicted criminal?
I hope not, because both are provably and obviously true, so that would mean you are arguing with reality, and I would therefore stop reading your comments altogether, by adjudging you insane. I already SKIM. Consider this a last warning before I give you a yellow card, UPGRADEABLE TO RED
We have see this in the UK all the time from Mail and Guardian from both sides of immigration cases that don't give the full story.
Chances of any such thing happening under Trump, approx. zero.
BUT IS IT
Having previously arrived TWO DAYS early for this flight, I am now suspicious of all dates, times, appointments. How do I KNOW this is Monday?? Might it not be Thursday, and everyone is lying to me? What if I am ALREADY IN Montevideo, and it just looks a lot like Camden Town, up by the park?
Similarly, when the amalgamation happened very few Liberals were added to our activist base. I’ve no doubt other areas such as the borders or the north were very different.
Please share your empirical methodology to show that Tommy is objectively less racist than that average.
"In the aftermath of his conviction, the White House immediately made it clear that he could not expect a presidential pardon from his father.
"In an interview with ABC in June, when asked whether he had “ruled out a pardon” for his son, Biden replied: “Yes.”
"Biden also told reporters at a G7 summit in June: "I said I'd abide by the jury decision, and I will do that. And I will not pardon him.”
"As recently as 7 November - just two days after Donald Trump clinched his return to the White House - Biden administration officials were still insisting that the president had no intention of pardoning his son"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceql5v5v0xlo
Then Joe Biden << checks notes >> pardoned his son, so Hunter Biden could avoid sentencing on two criminal charges, and thereby avoid jail
The sins of the father should not be visited on the son (thank God, or I am TOTALLY screwed) nonetheless it is a pointer
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1901606807539155116
Not sure it's a 'big' announcement!
I was hoping for a SUELLA
28 would be more appropriate !
Suella De Vil
If she will not join you
Who the fuck will?
😉
Democrats won the Hispanic vote and the working class vote.
Sorry, a bit obvious, but jeez.
Harris won 51% of voters earning over $100,000 and 56% of college graduates
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0
"racist, and a violent criminal, and a fraudster" comes out as "race-blind civic nationalist"
I mean, you are as deluded as a QANONer. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise from an obscure midbrow twat like you who still shouts "it came from the wet market!!!" like the last embarrassing drunk on the nightbus, but still, for the rest of PB which may not be as absurd as you, this stuff is worth pointing out
Why? Because it is the context. It is one reason Trump is elected (despite being an oaf) and one reason opposition to him (and his many grievous ills) may be harder to organise. A lot of American voters (see the polls) think the Dems are easily as bad as the Republicans - even now - and with reason
No doubt I will be banned again soon for daring to make these points. But then PB will be reduced to this echo chanber of bedwetters, moaning haplessly about The Donald, and with zero insight
I will now be spending more time doing interesting stuff but it won't be a permanent "holiday" by any means. I don't think I could ever slob around.
Perhaps the problem is that social media is selling 'lifestyles' a bit too much, either through people selling things, or just 'friends' pretending their life is better than it is. Expectations are too high.
[This is where I turn in to an atheist Wee Free]
For a moment I thought you might be about to come up with some clever justification.
It's about as naked a power grab as is possible to imagine. The implications run way beyond a few hundred deportees.
Genuine Enabling Law stuff, if they get away with it.
In the US those vulgar people are now MAGA supporters and here they are now Reform.
How that coalition is rebuilt is an interesting question in both cases. The middle class consider themselves morally superior because they “care” but what they care about is of little to no interest to those they pretend to represent.
"Business activity dropped significantly in New York State in March... Optimism about the outlook waned considerably for a second consecutive month"
@NYFedResearch
You become a Peculiar Person
Unless you are campaigning to abolish the charges for public loos.