Options
Marf delivers her take on the Trump/Putin phone call – politicalbetting.com
Marf delivers her take on the Trump/Putin phone call – politicalbetting.com
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Agree: 64%
Disagree: 34%
AtlasIntel / March 12, 2025 / n=2550
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902151309567951160
Oh crap.
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
Schumer: "No."
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902115968463106239
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1902016041032511597
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
https://andrewspreviews.substack.com/p/previewing-the-three-rivers-and-harborough
She probably eked out a win but this is exactly her issue at PMQs - she should be leaving that sort of exchange triumphant and instead it’s all a bit meh.
FT: “Compare Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on, and $1.4bn appears to have gone astray.”
@financialtimes.com
$TSLA
https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lkqh4zqk2c2b
“I myself don’t give away anything for nothing,” Pelosi told reporters in San Francisco on Tuesday. “I think that’s what happened the other day.”
https://x.com/ccadelago/status/1902127296930312280
"Democrats are facing a crisis of leadership"
Agree: 83%
Disagree: 12%
AtlasIntel / March 12, 2025 / n=2550
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902151138289553448
If I were Kemi, I might ask the Chief Whip to have a word with the Speaker about not letting PMQs turn into LotO-Qs.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
Trump admin didn't only stop the program that was helping to locate kidnapped Ukrainian kids, but deleted the years of research.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1902118800394236118
Netanyahu’s testimony in graft trial canceled for the day amid shock Gaza offensive
PM says prosecutors approved cancellation due to ‘urgent security consultation’ following resumption of hostilities
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahus-testimony-in-graft-trial-canceled-for-the-day-amid-shock-gaza-offensive/
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not testify as planned in his corruption trial on Tuesday following Israel’s surprise attack on the Gaza Strip, which ended a two-month ceasefire.
In his request that the court cancel the hearing, Netanyahu said the prosecution had approved the motion.
“Hours ago, the IDF commenced a military operation in the Gaza Strip,” read the request. “This morning at 11 an urgent security consultation will take place that will include the prime minister, defense minister and heads of the IDF security apparatus.”
https://x.com/NickKristof/status/1900869145685836189
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts-impact.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E4.H8Lx.GD39rucUfloD&smid=url-share
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
I invest all my money via an ISA. I've probably "earnt" more from my flat value increasing than I've saved from my salary. I'm a landlord. Together with my partner, we drive about 16,000 miles a year. I got on the housing ladder via a massive gift from parents. I fly quite a lot. In many ways, I'm my own worst nightmare.
I will continue to argue against my personal interest because I think that's what would be best for Scotland/UK/Earth as a whole. But until government policy reflects that, I'll do what works best for me personally, and don't really care what anyone else thinks.
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch.
2) congestion at the Cape
3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
Nevertheless I think he had some notion of being a consummate deal maker and everything would fall into place once he got involved. Blaming Canada for what happened suggests it didn't go quite as he expected.
Hoyle constantly reminded Sunak it was prime minsters questions which did not permit him to ask Starmer a question
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Just how relevant is the UN in today's world and is anyone even listening to them ?
Trump - Putin - Xi - Kim Jong Un are the new world order much to everyone's else's alarm and disquiet
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Amazonian_Launch_Complex
These are people so bigoted, they have to delete online references to women, blacks, and American Indians who fought bravely for the US (no doubt, they think the US fought on the wrong side in WWII).
However, neither event overturned the world order, even if they nudged it. It's Trump who has done that.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Enough to biryani interest I might have in the subject.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YmMMp__O0s
*OG Drax
It's possible that the DOJ lawyers are not up to the task, or they knew they were already fucked when Stephen Miller dropped this in their laps and are just flailing wildly in the hope someone else screws up worse
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
It also makes the occasional excuse that he is just awkward that some people use pretty phony - he may well be awkward, but he's clearly capable of being measured, articulate and balanced when he chooses to be, so his other behaviour is deliberate.
SCOOP: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is facing more calls to step aside than have previously been reported, with the possibility of more soon to come, Axios has learned.
https://x.com/axios/status/1902407033585840461
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
My personal view is we should stick to what we believe is moral despite what the law claims. An unpopular view I am sure. I just don't think I disagree with this but its legal so will do it because I can is an excuse.
I gave up my car even though I can legally drive one and use public transport for example.
I could probably afford better holidays by flying to spain on package holidays which is quite legal....however I don't
I don't buy anything more than I actually need...my mobile for example I get a second hand from cex when the old one breaks
I don't claim benefits unless I actually need them (3 months worth since 1987) eligble for at lot more than that over the years if I signed on everytime I have been made redundant
https://youtu.be/72pl3rKWe9M?si=BciOLQ47UR1CPkVS
I mean you can use the term as it's being directed against me here, ie in what I'm calling that "sloppy" sense, but then it loses its power somewhat (since it catches almost everyone). So I try to stick to the more precise usage.
Hey, I backed Spaun at 180 for the Players. Talk about nearly.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Where do you draw this line?
As a right wing person I think the state is bloated and spends too much, democracy disagreed with it I did my bit....Kinablu thinks the state isn't big enough and needs more money....when he had the choice he chose not to pay his fair tax
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.