Skip to content

Is Donald Trump’s problem that he’s too good at his job? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,860
edited 10:10AM in General
Is Donald Trump’s problem that he’s too good at his job? – politicalbetting.com

Kaylee McGhee White argued on "The Five" that President Donald Trump himself is to blame — because he's done too good of a job. https://t.co/dnRc2zKOUu

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,786
    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,267
    edited 10:13AM
    It’s a good job he didn’t add ‘for all I care’



    https://x.com/thetvgrump/status/2004926532649976155?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,309
    edited 10:18AM
    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,420
    It's the economy, stupid, and President Trump's tariffs will fire up the American economy by mid-2026.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,768
    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 4,075
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    It's the economy, stupid, and President Trump's tariffs will fire up the American economy by mid-2026.

    Fire up? Break down US supply chains to the point of pain, you mean?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,372
    Not very classy from the Barmy Army.

    Oscar Piastri was interviewed by Fox Cricket standing out on the ground during the tea break with England at 2/77.

    The sight of the popular Melburnian waking around the outside of the boundary rope certainly caused a stir.

    The 24-year-old was also interviewed by a ground announcer inside the stadium with the interaction shown on the big screens.

    The Barmy Army stuck the boot in during the interview by chanting: “You’re just a s*** Lando Norris”

    https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/oscar-piastri-jeered-in-fourth-test-incident-at-mcg/news-story/722d2f98548ceb8eeb7f36482cef22c9
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,962
    williamglenn said:

    RIP Brigitte Bardot

    Her "Pony-tail girl" look was taken from Picasso's still-surviving muse, Sylvette David.

    https://www.wallpaper.com/art/exhibitions-shows/picasso-girl-with-the-ponytail-sylvette-david-interview

    Sylvette still paints, living just a few miles from me in South Brent, Devon. One of her paintings was a Christmas present a couple of years back.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,768
    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,054
    ydoethur said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    bondegezou said:

    LostPassword said:

    Sandpit said:

    Allegedly the aftermath of a Russian attack on the Kyiv Dam this morning.

    https://x.com/nafovoyager/status/2004909075637977249

    Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.

    Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.

    There's something missing there.

    I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
    I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.

    We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.

    I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
    I think that's a very linear view of the politics.

    You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.

    If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.

    Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
    Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.

    As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?

    Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?

    On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
    I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.

    I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.

    This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.

    I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.

    We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.

    This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.

    I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
    I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.

    If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.

    Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
    I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.

    But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
    Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.

    Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
    Abkhazia, not Chechnya.
    No, I meant Chechnya. I'd forgotten about Abkhazia.
    But Chechnya is internationally recognised as Russian territory. In fact, Chechens have fought enthusiastically for Putin against the Ukrainians.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,743
    edited 10:38AM
    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,420
    Cicero said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    It's the economy, stupid, and President Trump's tariffs will fire up the American economy by mid-2026.

    Fire up? Break down US supply chains to the point of pain, you mean?
    O ye of little faith...
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,948
    boulay said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    williamglenn said:

    RIP Brigitte Bardot

    Her "Pony-tail girl" look was taken from Picasso's still-surviving muse, Sylvette David.

    https://www.wallpaper.com/art/exhibitions-shows/picasso-girl-with-the-ponytail-sylvette-david-interview

    Sylvette still paints, living just a few miles from me in South Brent, Devon. One of her paintings was a Christmas present a couple of years back.
    Which was nice.
    Massive Mollie Sugden's Bridesmaid energy.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    bondegezou said:

    LostPassword said:

    Sandpit said:

    Allegedly the aftermath of a Russian attack on the Kyiv Dam this morning.

    https://x.com/nafovoyager/status/2004909075637977249

    Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.

    Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.

    There's something missing there.

    I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
    I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.

    We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.

    I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
    I think that's a very linear view of the politics.

    You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.

    If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.

    Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
    Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.

    As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?

    Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?

    On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
    I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.

    I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.

    This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.

    I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.

    We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.

    This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.

    I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
    I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.

    If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.

    Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
    I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.

    But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
    Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.

    Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
    Abkhazia, not Chechnya.
    No, I meant Chechnya. I'd forgotten about Abkhazia.
    But Chechnya is internationally recognised as Russian territory. In fact, Chechens have fought enthusiastically for Putin against the Ukrainians.
    I'm not sure if Chechens have been all that enthusiastic about fighting, as opposed to posting tiktok videos about it, while avoiding any fighting as much as possible.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    bondegezou said:

    LostPassword said:

    Sandpit said:

    Allegedly the aftermath of a Russian attack on the Kyiv Dam this morning.

    https://x.com/nafovoyager/status/2004909075637977249

    Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.

    Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.

    There's something missing there.

    I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
    I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.

    We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.

    I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
    I think that's a very linear view of the politics.

    You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.

    If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.

    Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
    Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.

    As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?

    Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?

    On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
    I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.

    I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.

    This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.

    I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.

    We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.

    This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.

    I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
    I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.

    If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.

    Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
    I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.

    But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
    Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.

    Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
    Abkhazia, not Chechnya.
    No, I meant Chechnya. I'd forgotten about Abkhazia.
    But Chechnya is internationally recognised as Russian territory. In fact, Chechens have fought enthusiastically for Putin against the Ukrainians.
    Are many Chechens the sort of people who will always fight enthusiastically for somebody?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,444
    .
    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,309
    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Historically, of course, or at least in the 20th Century populations which 'turned away from centrist politicians' tended to go Leftwards...... apart perhaps from Germany and Hungary. Now that hasn't worked, or at least apparently so, the reverse is applying.
    Although AfD can't be described as Leftist.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,598
    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,890
    "Sir Keir Starmer has been criticised for welcoming the arrival of Egyptian pro-democracy activist Alaa Abdel Fattah to the UK - after historical social media messages emerged showing the campaigner apparently calling for Zionists to be killed."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5mr0gdnmeo
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,743
    edited 11:03AM
    Clutch_Brompton said:

    OT - For he is Ozymandias King of Kings, look upon his works and despair.

    Trump's issue is that he believes he was elected on immigration when he was actually mainly elected on the economy. So by going hard on immigration the issue died AND he damaged the economy. Allied with tarrifs it has taken a reviving economy and ruthlessly crushed those green shoots. The comparison with a 'Hard Brexit' is obvious.

    Curiously the same analysis applies to Starmer. Far too focused on immigration and not enough on cost of living, which is what did for his predecessors too.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,444
    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,743
    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    Indeed. Trump's economic "success" is very similar to Putin's war-fuelled boost to GDP last year. A short term sugar rush that doesn't benefit ordinary people and which has long term detriments.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    Trump has certainly delivered on deportations and border control and that is where his ratings remain highest, as well as pushing for women only bathrooms etc. He has also delivered the tariffs on foreign imports his core voters backed, the problem is that has also led to rising inflation which is the biggest reason for his declining approval rating.

    Abroad his record is mixed, peace agreed in Gaza but not Ukraine but US voters rarely care much about nor vote on foreign policy, the economy is normally the biggest issue in US elections and that is where cost of living is hitting Trump and the GOP
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    'The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been urged to scrap plans to spend £100m over the Church of England's historical links to slavery.

    In a letter seen by the Sunday Times, external, a group of Conservative MPs and peers has urged Dame Sarah Mullally to stop the Church from spending the money.

    They claim the funds can only legally be spent on churches and the payment of clergy wages.

    In a statement to the paper, the Church Commissioners said that arrangements for the fund were being "developed transparently - in line with charity law".

    Mullally, who currently serves as the Bishop of London, will take up her new role as the first-ever female Archbishop of Canterbury next month.

    The Church of England's slavery links proposal was announced in January 2023, external following the publication of a report into the Church's historical links to transatlantic slavery.

    The report, external, requested by the Church's financing arm - the Church Commissioners - found that a fund established by Queen Anne in 1704 to help poor Anglican clergy was used to finance "great evil".

    According to the report, the fund, known as Queen Anne's Bounty, invested in African chattel enslavement and took donations derived from it.

    After the report's publication, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said he was "deeply sorry" for the links and said action would be taken to address the Church's "shameful past".

    The Church Commissioners announced a new £100m fund, committed over a nine-year period, to be spent on "a programme of investment, research and engagement" in communities damaged by the enslavement of African people during the transatlantic slave trade.

    However, in their letter to Mullally, MPs and peers have urged the Church to focus on "strengthening parishes" rather than on pursuing what they describe as "high-profile and legally dubious vanity projects".'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e7w03067o
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,444
    .
    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    kinabalu said:

    I hope Trump’s poor ratings are as much to do with disgust at his corruption and imbecilic behaviour as with the economy. Firstly because that would say something good about the American people. Secondly because if it's mainly about the economy it leaves open the chance of a bounceback. There's no way he's going to get less corrupt or become less of an imbecile. That's unidirectional and only going to get worse. The US economy, however, is a beast of awesome size, strength and resilience. I can easily imagine it picking up and motoring for a period under any president including this one.

    It isn't, 50% of US voters elected Trump last year regardless of his behaviour. His declining ratings are entirely due to rising cost of living as a result of his tariffs
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,739
    He has been pretty successful in implementing Project 2025, despite disclaiming any knowledge of it.

    Pure coincidence that its architect is now director of the OMB.

    The Trump administration says it plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, which is the nation’s premier atmospheric science center. In his announcement of the closing, OMB Director Russell Vought called the center “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”

    NCAR, as the center is known, was founded in 1960 and has facilitated generations of breakthroughs in climate and weather science...
    https://x.com/NewsHour/status/2004698743325565054
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 11:25AM
    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    In what way has the Trump Government 'refashioned' the Middle East in the West's favour?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,932
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    I hope Trump’s poor ratings are as much to do with disgust at his corruption and imbecilic behaviour as with the economy. Firstly because that would say something good about the American people. Secondly because if it's mainly about the economy it leaves open the chance of a bounceback. There's no way he's going to get less corrupt or become less of an imbecile. That's unidirectional and only going to get worse. The US economy, however, is a beast of awesome size, strength and resilience. I can easily imagine it picking up and motoring for a period under any president including this one.

    It isn't, 50% of US voters elected Trump last year regardless of his behaviour. His declining ratings are entirely due to rising cost of living as a result of his tariffs
    I don't think the polling suggests that it's entirely down to cost of living. Hispanic voters - a key part of his base - have turned away from him to a greater degree than others, and that's down to ICE: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/11/24/majorities-of-latinos-disapprove-of-trump-and-his-policies-on-immigration-economy/
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,444
    OldKingCole said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    In what way has the Trump Government 'refashioned' the Middle East in the West's favour?
    He has isolated the mullahs of Iran diplomatically, setting back the Iranian nuclear programme with direct action, and helped facilitate the destruction of hamas and hezbollah with weapons supply, before making Bibi put the handbrake on when the job was done.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,739
    OldKingCole said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    In what way has the Trump Government 'refashioned' the Middle East in the West's favour?
    They pay the President and his family a LOT more than they used to ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,739
    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    It was one of the defining themes of the Biden administration's economic policy.
    Whose investments in manufacturing the GOP are still celebrating (and claiming as their own).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    Trump has set himself against the Enlightenment. He is destroying Western civilization. He is dragging the US back to an Early Modern view of the state and power. It's a fucking disaster.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
    The New Zealand PM is Christopher Luxon, leader of the centre right Nationals and basically a Cameroon, nothing like a rightwing nationalist populist at all. Even if he has a few members of the rightwing populist anti immigration NZ First and libertarian ACT in his government as New Zealand has PR and majority governments are unusual there now.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,739
    This, I think, will be the single defining policy of this administration.

    Inside Stephen Miller’s Dark Plot to Build a MAGA Terror State
    https://newrepublic.com/article/204191/stephen-miller-maga-terror-state-dark-plot
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,444
    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 11:41AM
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    I hope Trump’s poor ratings are as much to do with disgust at his corruption and imbecilic behaviour as with the economy. Firstly because that would say something good about the American people. Secondly because if it's mainly about the economy it leaves open the chance of a bounceback. There's no way he's going to get less corrupt or become less of an imbecile. That's unidirectional and only going to get worse. The US economy, however, is a beast of awesome size, strength and resilience. I can easily imagine it picking up and motoring for a period under any president including this one.

    It isn't, 50% of US voters elected Trump last year regardless of his behaviour. His declining ratings are entirely due to rising cost of living as a result of his tariffs
    I don't think the polling suggests that it's entirely down to cost of living. Hispanic voters - a key part of his base - have turned away from him to a greater degree than others, and that's down to ICE: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/11/24/majorities-of-latinos-disapprove-of-trump-and-his-policies-on-immigration-economy/
    OK, I will grant you a few Hispanics may have gone Democrat because of the heavy nature of his deportations but the median US voter is still white not Hispanic and cost of living is what matters most to them and they are where Trump has seen most leakage to the Democrats
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    Nigelb said:

    He has been pretty successful in implementing Project 2025, despite disclaiming any knowledge of it.

    Pure coincidence that its architect is now director of the OMB.

    The Trump administration says it plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, which is the nation’s premier atmospheric science center. In his announcement of the closing, OMB Director Russell Vought called the center “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”

    NCAR, as the center is known, was founded in 1960 and has facilitated generations of breakthroughs in climate and weather science...
    https://x.com/NewsHour/status/2004698743325565054

    Project 2025 is trying to drag us back to a time of ignorance and superstition. I don't think Trump gives a damn about this. He goes along with this for reasons of revenge mostly, but the ideologues are using his authority to do immense damage.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,598
    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,204
    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 11:41AM
    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    Depends where, in big cities the hard left has more appeal than the populist right, hence London and Manchester voted for Corbyn, Paris for Melenchon, New York city for Mamdani etc.

    In rural and suburban areas and medium and small sized towns though the nationalist right has more appeal than the hard left
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,710
    edited 11:41AM
    moonshine said:

    OldKingCole said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    In what way has the Trump Government 'refashioned' the Middle East in the West's favour?
    He has isolated the mullahs of Iran diplomatically, setting back the Iranian nuclear programme with direct action, and helped facilitate the destruction of hamas and hezbollah with weapons supply, before making Bibi put the handbrake on when the job was done.
    Only an Israeli could think like that. He have helped build a powder keg which will explode in the next few years.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
    The New Zealand PM is Christopher Luxon, leader of the centre right Nationals and basically a Cameroon, nothing like a rightwing nationalist populist at all. Even if he has a few members of the rightwing populist anti immigration NZ First and libertarian ACT in his government as New Zealand has PR and majority governments are unusual there now.

    Then why am I told that race relations there are deteriorating? Just one example.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,962
    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    Western civilization is utterly incompatible with Russian imperialism with its inhuman method of implementation. Fighting Russian expansionism would be a partof that line in the sand if it meant anything. It doesn't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 11:47AM
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
    The New Zealand PM is Christopher Luxon, leader of the centre right Nationals and basically a Cameroon, nothing like a rightwing nationalist populist at all. Even if he has a few members of the rightwing populist anti immigration NZ First and libertarian ACT in his government as New Zealand has PR and majority governments are unusual there now.

    Then why am I told that race relations there are deteriorating? Just one example.
    As you mix with woke lefties? In any case PM Luxon and the Nationals opposed David Seymour and the ACT's Treaty Principles Bill beyond its first reading which would have limited protections for Maori rights. The Bill was defeated on second reading
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,598
    edited 11:46AM
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    I hope Trump’s poor ratings are as much to do with disgust at his corruption and imbecilic behaviour as with the economy. Firstly because that would say something good about the American people. Secondly because if it's mainly about the economy it leaves open the chance of a bounceback. There's no way he's going to get less corrupt or become less of an imbecile. That's unidirectional and only going to get worse. The US economy, however, is a beast of awesome size, strength and resilience. I can easily imagine it picking up and motoring for a period under any president including this one.

    It isn't, 50% of US voters elected Trump last year regardless of his behaviour. His declining ratings are entirely due to rising cost of living as a result of his tariffs
    Maybe, maybe not. It's mainly just a shift against him from non-partisans in the middle. I'd have thought some of that is driven by things other than the cost of living.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,325
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
    The New Zealand PM is Christopher Luxon, leader of the centre right Nationals and basically a Cameroon, nothing like a rightwing nationalist populist at all. Even if he has a few members of the rightwing populist anti immigration NZ First and libertarian ACT in his government as New Zealand has PR and majority governments are unusual there now.

    Then why am I told that race relations there are deteriorating? Just one example.
    social media will tell you that race relations are deteriorating everywhere
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 11:50AM
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    I hope Trump’s poor ratings are as much to do with disgust at his corruption and imbecilic behaviour as with the economy. Firstly because that would say something good about the American people. Secondly because if it's mainly about the economy it leaves open the chance of a bounceback. There's no way he's going to get less corrupt or become less of an imbecile. That's unidirectional and only going to get worse. The US economy, however, is a beast of awesome size, strength and resilience. I can easily imagine it picking up and motoring for a period under any president including this one.

    It isn't, 50% of US voters elected Trump last year regardless of his behaviour. His declining ratings are entirely due to rising cost of living as a result of his tariffs
    Maybe, maybe not. It's mainly just a shift against him from non-partisans in the middle. I'd have thought some of that is driven by things other than the cost of living.
    It isn't, name me one US election where the election has been decided on an issue other than the state of the economy? For example, opposition to the President's foreign policy?

    The character of the President has also rarely been an issue, even Nixon was re elected in 1972 as the Watergate scandal emerged though the GOP were punished in the subsequent midterms
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,045
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    You keep saying this.
    It has never been recognised as independent.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,204
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    Depends where, in big cities the hard left has more appeal than the populist right, hence London and Manchester voted for Corbyn, Paris for Melenchon, New York city for Mamdani etc.

    In rural and suburban areas and medium and small sized towns though the nationalist right has more appeal than the hard left
    A feature of successful big cities, in recent times, is the out-migration of middle income voters, who work in the private sector. They will often commute to work in such cities, but they live (and are registered to vote), outside them.

    The gap between rich and poor tends to be very clear and pronounced. Glittering shopping districts, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, and financial districts, co-exist with districts where people live in grim social housing, or overcrowded private rented housing. Add in big student populations.

    That makes radical socialism very popular, in those cities.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,598
    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    Well you should work on developing that problem. But, yep, like I said, if his unpopularity is down to the economy it can easily turnaround. There's no certainty that what he's doing will stop it doing ok. The risks of the humungous deficit aren't likely to crystalise anytime soon.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,385
    IDS now regrets signing the letter supporting the Egyptian dissident.

    If only he’d had the presence of mind to look into his social media rather than just sign what came across his desk that may make him look good.

    https://x.com/mpiainds/status/2005237227962401162?s=61
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
    The New Zealand PM is Christopher Luxon, leader of the centre right Nationals and basically a Cameroon, nothing like a rightwing nationalist populist at all. Even if he has a few members of the rightwing populist anti immigration NZ First and libertarian ACT in his government as New Zealand has PR and majority governments are unusual there now.

    Then why am I told that race relations there are deteriorating? Just one example.
    As you mix with woke lefties? In any case PM Luxon and the Nationals opposed David Seymour and the ACT's Treaty Principles Bill beyond its first reading which would have limited protections for Maori rights. The Bill was defeated on second reading
    I suppose my informant could be on the left. He's a relation and he worked with one of the Maori groups, on youth development and integration, for some years
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,204
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    The US has in practice, treated Taiwan as an allied state since the 1970’s.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,420
    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    Trump might be right about China but America's dilemma is that in order to benefit from the dollar being the world's reserve and trading currency, it has to run a deficit.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,045
    Nigelb said:

    This, I think, will be the single defining policy of this administration.

    Inside Stephen Miller’s Dark Plot to Build a MAGA Terror State
    https://newrepublic.com/article/204191/stephen-miller-maga-terror-state-dark-plot

    That's a quite remarkable number of words to say "he prefers White people".
    That much is obvious from here.
    Not a great fan of the author making such a big play of his subject's own ethnic background front and centre either.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    Taiwan is getting, AIUI, some very 'tasty' defence equipment.

    It's also never been 'independent', as currently understood, since mainland Chinese immigrated there several hundred years ago.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,054
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    You keep saying this.
    It has never been recognised as independent.
    12 Nations recognise Taiwan:

    Belize
    Eswatini
    Guatemala
    Haiti
    Marshall Islands
    Palau
    Paraguay
    Saint Kitts
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent
    Tuvalu
    Vatican

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Taiwan
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,324
    Afternoon peeps.

    Hope we all had a good Xmas and the heads are beginning to clear.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,890
    FindOutNow
    24 Dec 25

    RFM 30%
    CON 18%
    GRN 17%
    LAB 14%
    LDM 12%

    https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    Only a small country I know, but New Zealand swung to the right last time and my 'intelligence' is that voters there will swing back next.
    The New Zealand PM is Christopher Luxon, leader of the centre right Nationals and basically a Cameroon, nothing like a rightwing nationalist populist at all. Even if he has a few members of the rightwing populist anti immigration NZ First and libertarian ACT in his government as New Zealand has PR and majority governments are unusual there now.

    Then why am I told that race relations there are deteriorating? Just one example.
    As you mix with woke lefties? In any case PM Luxon and the Nationals opposed David Seymour and the ACT's Treaty Principles Bill beyond its first reading which would have limited protections for Maori rights. The Bill was defeated on second reading
    I suppose my informant could be on the left. He's a relation and he worked with one of the Maori groups, on youth development and integration, for some years
    Most likely, if Seymour and the ACT or NZ First won the next NZ election you might have a point it is also a nation moving to the populist right.

    No sign of that in the polls though which have Labour and the Nationals still first and second
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,045
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    Taiwan is getting, AIUI, some very 'tasty' defence equipment.

    It's also never been 'independent', as currently understood, since mainland Chinese immigrated there several hundred years ago.
    Correct. That is the de jure situation.
    It is also true to say that during those centuries it has barely ever been de facto under the day-to-day control of Mainland China.
    In fact. It's spent much more time as effectively part of Japan, for example.
    Which is a partial cause of the complexity.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,711
    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Well, why don’t you try making that case if it exists?

    I could do with a good laugh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 12:16PM
    Andy_JS said:

    FindOutNow
    24 Dec 25

    RFM 30%
    CON 18%
    GRN 17%
    LAB 14%
    LDM 12%

    https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi

    Their rating for the Greens is absurd, nearly 5% higher than most other polls and they have Labour too low as a result. Their Reform and Tory and LD ratings are about average, maybe Reform fractionally higher and the Tories a little lower than other polls
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    dixiedean said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    Taiwan is getting, AIUI, some very 'tasty' defence equipment.

    It's also never been 'independent', as currently understood, since mainland Chinese immigrated there several hundred years ago.
    Correct. That is the de jure situation.
    It is also true to say that during those centuries it has barely ever been de facto under the day-to-day control of Mainland China.
    In fact. It's spent much more time as effectively part of Japan, for example.
    Which is a partial cause of the complexity.
    And the Dutch.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,054
    dixiedean said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    Taiwan is getting, AIUI, some very 'tasty' defence equipment.

    It's also never been 'independent', as currently understood, since mainland Chinese immigrated there several hundred years ago.
    Correct. That is the de jure situation.
    It is also true to say that during those centuries it has barely ever been de facto under the day-to-day control of Mainland China.
    In fact. It's spent much more time as effectively part of Japan, for example.
    Which is a partial cause of the complexity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Taiwan
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,574
    OldKingCole said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Americans are tired of so much winning, as Trump predicted from the start.

    Americans tired of Trump winning at their literal expense, yes.
    And yet 4.3% year on year gdp growth in q3…
    As I was saying.
    I have no problem saying I think Trump’s government on the whole has been doing a remarkably good job. For sure there is still a lingering faux pas in saying you think so, wouldn’t be a huge surprise if the polls are off.
    I, in turn, think it has been doing a terrible job (seen purely from a US viewpoint).

    The USA’s long-term strategic interests are being undermined, by its own government. Tariffs are imposing higher prices, on US consumers and businesses. The rule of law is ignored by an administration, which functions as a kleptocracy.
    The Trump government has drawn a line in the sand that says that western civilisation is failing and it must stop. DEI/wokism is gone, border security is back, defence spending high on the agenda once again. They understand that globalising supply chains to your enemies is stupid and are using tariffs as a creative foreign policy tool. They’ve completely refashioned the Middle East in the west’s favour and are busy reorienting Latin America into the western hemisphere. It’s frustrating they still can’t / won’t balance a budget but as a first year scorecard they have done remarkably well.
    In what way has the Trump Government 'refashioned' the Middle East in the West's favour?
    moonshine right enough, too much imbibed methinks
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,711
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    ydoethur said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    LostPassword said:

    bondegezou said:

    LostPassword said:

    Sandpit said:

    Allegedly the aftermath of a Russian attack on the Kyiv Dam this morning.

    https://x.com/nafovoyager/status/2004909075637977249

    Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.

    Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.

    There's something missing there.

    I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
    I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.

    We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.

    I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
    I think that's a very linear view of the politics.

    You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.

    If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.

    Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
    Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.

    As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?

    Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?

    On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
    I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.

    I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.

    This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.

    I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.

    We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.

    This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.

    I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
    I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.

    If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.

    Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
    I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.

    But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
    Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.

    Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
    Abkhazia, not Chechnya.
    No, I meant Chechnya. I'd forgotten about Abkhazia.
    But Chechnya is internationally recognised as Russian territory. In fact, Chechens have fought enthusiastically for Putin against the Ukrainians.
    Some Chechens have fought for Putin, but many others have not. Many of the Chechen independence fighters who had to flee Russia after the second Chechen war, who were active in Syria, have now gone to Ukraine, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajnad_al-Kavkaz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_volunteers_on_the_side_of_Ukraine
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,598
    LostPassword said:

    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
    You think anti-capitalism is as easy a sell in developed western societies as anti-immigration? I don't. I think without that identity and nationalism angle you're left with something that has quite a low ceiling of electoral support. But I could be wrong. Hope I am actually. Polanski will provide some evidence either way. He's charismatic and slick on the comms. Definitely a 'today' politician not stuck in a past era like eg Corbyn. So let's see where he polls compared to Farage at the GE.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,296
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FindOutNow
    24 Dec 25

    RFM 30%
    CON 18%
    GRN 17%
    LAB 14%
    LDM 12%

    https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi

    Their rating for the Greens is absurd, nearly 5% higher than most other polls and they have Labour too low as a result. Their Reform and Tory and LD ratings are about average, maybe Reform fractionally higher and the Tories a little lower than other polls
    n=1, with all that is implied by the following, but my Labour voting public servant (and highly educated) granddaughter is definitely talking about voting Green next time.
    Very disillusioned with Labour.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    Trump might be right about China but America's dilemma is that in order to benefit from the dollar being the world's reserve and trading currency, it has to run a deficit.
    It has to run a current account deficit perhaps. It ran a trade surplus between the end of WWII and ~1970, presumably sending many dollars overseas to make investments in other countries.

    That's a rather different situation to running a trade deficit and borrowing money from overseas.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,105
    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    I think you might be talking about yourself there.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,598
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    moonshine said:

    LostPassword said:

    squareroot2 said:

    stodge said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Go on, then, make the case.

    Are you calling it "silent Trump syndrome"?
    Sort of.. its your job to dispute what I say. How many Democrats think there's too many illegal immigrants.. too much shite being imported from China at or below cost probably....
    There have been lots of people worried about the scale of US (and European) imports from China for many years. I also "agree" with Trump on motherhood and apple pie being good things.

    This is not a concession to his world view or politics at all, or a sign that he was willing to say things out loud that other people thought but weren't willing to say.

    I don't get the argument that being worried about a trade deficit with China is a uniquely Trumpian idea.
    I understand the mindset of the Chinese communist party reasonably well having seen it up close. There are wings within it that have considered themselves at war with the US (ergo the west) for basically the whole 21st century. Much of their economic policy should be seen through this lens. The hoots of derision when that wet George Osborne rolled out the red carpet for them in London still ring in my ears today. I recall too Condi Rice apologising to a conference in Asia, for admitting China to the WTO, as the gravest mistake of the GW Bush era.

    Trump’s focus on China is merely reflective of how I imagine the US security apparatus sees the world. Much of his foreign policy needs to be seen through this prism, that the US now considers itself in a great power struggle with an openly hostile budding superpower. So it is busy reshaping the global map and tying up loose ends and distractions.
    Trump’s principal focus is on lining his own family’s pockets, and those of his immediate supporters, and pursuing grudges against those he thinks have wronged him.

    If China offered the right price, Taiwan would be sacrificed by Trump.
    The US already says Taiwan is part of One China, Taiwan has never been recognised as an independent nation by the US since the 1970s.

    Japan is likely getting nukes, Taiwan should follow suit
    You keep saying this.
    It has never been recognised as independent.
    12 Nations recognise Taiwan:

    Belize
    Eswatini
    Guatemala
    Haiti
    Marshall Islands
    Palau
    Paraguay
    Saint Kitts
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent
    Tuvalu
    Vatican

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Taiwan
    Looking forward to the Swiss Guards being sent by Pope Leo to help defend Taipei!
    Haven't seen action for a while. Have they still got it?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,601
    ...
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FindOutNow
    24 Dec 25

    RFM 30%
    CON 18%
    GRN 17%
    LAB 14%
    LDM 12%

    https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi

    Their rating for the Greens is absurd, nearly 5% higher than most other polls and they have Labour too low as a result. Their Reform and Tory and LD ratings are about average, maybe Reform fractionally higher and the Tories a little lower than other polls
    FON are (afaicr) just using unweighted Tesco data. I think that has value as a barometer of public opinion - I can well believe there are that many Labour to Green switchers - though of course past-vote weighting would move some of them back to Labour.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,601
    bondegezou said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Well, why don’t you try making that case if it exists?

    I could do with a good laugh.
    I am sure that's true given Starmer's recent japes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FindOutNow
    24 Dec 25

    RFM 30%
    CON 18%
    GRN 17%
    LAB 14%
    LDM 12%

    https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi

    Their rating for the Greens is absurd, nearly 5% higher than most other polls and they have Labour too low as a result. Their Reform and Tory and LD ratings are about average, maybe Reform fractionally higher and the Tories a little lower than other polls
    n=1, with all that is implied by the following, but my Labour voting public servant (and highly educated) granddaughter is definitely talking about voting Green next time.
    Very disillusioned with Labour.
    Yes but most under 30s also voted for Corbyn. The Greens only lead Labour with 18-24s with Yougov, Labour lead the Greens with all age groups over 25. With over 50s the Greens are still 5th, behind Reform, the Tories and Labour and even still behind the LDs
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=65plus
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,423
    edited 12:41PM
    HYUFD said:

    'The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been urged to scrap plans to spend £100m over the Church of England's historical links to slavery.

    In a letter seen by the Sunday Times, external, a group of Conservative MPs and peers has urged Dame Sarah Mullally to stop the Church from spending the money.

    They claim the funds can only legally be spent on churches and the payment of clergy wages.

    In a statement to the paper, the Church Commissioners said that arrangements for the fund were being "developed transparently - in line with charity law".

    Mullally, who currently serves as the Bishop of London, will take up her new role as the first-ever female Archbishop of Canterbury next month.

    The Church of England's slavery links proposal was announced in January 2023, external following the publication of a report into the Church's historical links to transatlantic slavery.

    The report, external, requested by the Church's financing arm - the Church Commissioners - found that a fund established by Queen Anne in 1704 to help poor Anglican clergy was used to finance "great evil".

    According to the report, the fund, known as Queen Anne's Bounty, invested in African chattel enslavement and took donations derived from it.

    After the report's publication, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said he was "deeply sorry" for the links and said action would be taken to address the Church's "shameful past".

    The Church Commissioners announced a new £100m fund, committed over a nine-year period, to be spent on "a programme of investment, research and engagement" in communities damaged by the enslavement of African people during the transatlantic slave trade.

    However, in their letter to Mullally, MPs and peers have urged the Church to focus on "strengthening parishes" rather than on pursuing what they describe as "high-profile and legally dubious vanity projects".'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e7w03067o

    That's interesting, but very obscure.

    There are a couple of things going on here. I'm not at all sure there is a viable legal case - there will be various precedents in a period since 1704, but I doubt they will try it. That sort of legal action is very expensive.

    There's obviously populist right politics happening, with a search for attention - this is people like Lam, Philp and Lord Biggar (a priest who never had a parish, and was at places like Regent College Vancouver, and Latimer House, Cambridge, which are both Conservative Evangelical).

    But politically it will be interesting, and for pressure they will leverage Parliamentary on normally non-contentious Church of England legislation in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and gum up the works.

    That was a game Danny Kruger was playing last autumn.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,125
    edited 12:41PM
    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    It gives people open licence to indulge their worst instincts while left populism still pays at least lip service to idealism (even if calculating opportunist can still use it to do bad stuff). So liberating to wave banners saying ‘kill em all’, set migrant hotels on fire, fire off Hitler salutes and aspire to traffic women. Best of all you can construct a shaky edifice of virtue by saying you’re slicing away the hypocrisy of woke lefties and cutting to the chase of what being a human being is all about.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,711
    edited 12:43PM
    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    There’s a few more countries maybe where they’ve done well, like Honduras, Poland (President) and Czechia, but I think your point stands. Looking at some others…

    St Lucia: landslide for the left.
    Netherlands: liberals did best.
    Moldova: centrist liberals won.
    Norway: left win, but big increase for the right-wing populists.
    Jamaica: the traditional right (confusingly called the Labour Party) won, but with a big swing to the left.
    Japan: centre right/liberals win, but right-wing populists make some gains.
    South Korea: liberals win the Presidency
    Romania: ditto
    Philippines: centre right do well.
    Albania: centre left win.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,479
    edited 12:43PM
    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
    You think anti-capitalism is as easy a sell in developed western societies as anti-immigration? I don't. I think without that identity and nationalism angle you're left with something that has quite a low ceiling of electoral support. But I could be wrong. Hope I am actually. Polanski will provide some evidence either way. He's charismatic and slick on the comms. Definitely a 'today' politician not stuck in a past era like eg Corbyn. So let's see where he polls compared to Farage at the GE.
    A more imaginative left would have more to say about the future they want to create, rather than what they oppose in the status quo.

    For example, the Right aren't simply anti-immigration. They are also selling an idealised vision of the past that has been lost and can be regained.

    So in very simple terms I would say that the battle between the populist right and left would be between nostalgia and utopia - but the utopia is largely missing from the left's offer at the moment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 12:48PM
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    'The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been urged to scrap plans to spend £100m over the Church of England's historical links to slavery.

    In a letter seen by the Sunday Times, external, a group of Conservative MPs and peers has urged Dame Sarah Mullally to stop the Church from spending the money.

    They claim the funds can only legally be spent on churches and the payment of clergy wages.

    In a statement to the paper, the Church Commissioners said that arrangements for the fund were being "developed transparently - in line with charity law".

    Mullally, who currently serves as the Bishop of London, will take up her new role as the first-ever female Archbishop of Canterbury next month.

    The Church of England's slavery links proposal was announced in January 2023, external following the publication of a report into the Church's historical links to transatlantic slavery.

    The report, external, requested by the Church's financing arm - the Church Commissioners - found that a fund established by Queen Anne in 1704 to help poor Anglican clergy was used to finance "great evil".

    According to the report, the fund, known as Queen Anne's Bounty, invested in African chattel enslavement and took donations derived from it.

    After the report's publication, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said he was "deeply sorry" for the links and said action would be taken to address the Church's "shameful past".

    The Church Commissioners announced a new £100m fund, committed over a nine-year period, to be spent on "a programme of investment, research and engagement" in communities damaged by the enslavement of African people during the transatlantic slave trade.

    However, in their letter to Mullally, MPs and peers have urged the Church to focus on "strengthening parishes" rather than on pursuing what they describe as "high-profile and legally dubious vanity projects".'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e7w03067o

    There are a couple of things going on here. I'm not at all sure there is a viable legal case - there will be various precedents in a period since 1704, but I doubt they will try it.

    There's obviously populist right politics, with a seach for attention - this is people like Lam, Philp and Lord Biggar (Regent College Vancouver, and Latimer House, Cambridge, amongst others).

    But politically it will be interesting, and for pressure they will leverage Parliamentary on normally non-contentious Church of England legislation in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and gum up the works.

    That was a game Danny Kruger was playing last autumn.
    Indeed, this is populism.

    While sympathetic though to the MPs and peers pushing more funds for Parishes, if any income from the 1704 bounty can be directly linked to investments in slave trading companies I can see why the C of E commissioners are doing what they are proposing. That income, only that income mind, should be used to fund projects in Africa and the Caribbean and maybe support churches with large Black British congregations England.

    I know a few aristocratic families maybe even the King are also looking at their assets to see if they can make reparations for any income from slavery. Older companies like Barclays and Greene King and Lloyds of London and RBS (now Natwest) are also potentially affected. Greene King is looking into reparations and Lloyds of London invests in BAME projects as a result, as did RBS. Oxbridge colleges and some of the oldest public schools too could be implicated, some colleges increasing scholarships for black students from the Caribbean and Africa
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/barclays-hsbc-and-lloyds-among-uk-banks-that-had-links-to-slavery
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,327
    edited 12:51PM
    LostPassword said:

    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    kinabalu said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?

    My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
    I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
    You think anti-capitalism is as easy a sell in developed western societies as anti-immigration? I don't. I think without that identity and nationalism angle you're left with something that has quite a low ceiling of electoral support. But I could be wrong. Hope I am actually. Polanski will provide some evidence either way. He's charismatic and slick on the comms. Definitely a 'today' politician not stuck in a past era like eg Corbyn. So let's see where he polls compared to Farage at the GE.
    A more imaginative left would have more to say about the future they want to create, rather than what they oppose in the status quo.

    For example, the Right aren't simply anti-immigration. They are also selling an idealised vision of the past that has been lost and can be regained.

    So in very simple terms I would say that the battle between the populist right and left would be between nostalgia and utopia - but the utopia is largely missing from the left's offer at the moment.
    There are some UK voters whose ideal PM would be Farage on culture and Corbyn on economics. Especially in majority white working class seats.

    Indeed there are some voters who voted for UKIP in 2015, Corbyn in 2017, Boris in 2019, Labour or Reform in 2024 and now are firm Farage and Reform voters
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,711
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    bondegezou said:

    squareroot2 said:

    I think there is a case to be made that many who lambast Trump actually agree with what he says but daren't admit it to themselves and their friends.

    Well, why don’t you try making that case if it exists?

    I could do with a good laugh.
    I am sure that's true given Starmer's recent japes.
    Are you mistaking me for a Starmer supporter? I voted against him when he was my local constituency candidate and I’ve never voted for Labour in any FPTP election.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,312
    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.

    I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.

    Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
    Not in Canada or Australia earlier this year where the centre left won, nor in the French legislative elections where the far left won most seats.

    Only in Argentina and Italy and Israel beyond the US have the rightwing populists clearly won in terms of the developed world
    The guy in Argentina is an improvement on the Peronists they usually have.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,204
    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    'The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been urged to scrap plans to spend £100m over the Church of England's historical links to slavery.

    In a letter seen by the Sunday Times, external, a group of Conservative MPs and peers has urged Dame Sarah Mullally to stop the Church from spending the money.

    They claim the funds can only legally be spent on churches and the payment of clergy wages.

    In a statement to the paper, the Church Commissioners said that arrangements for the fund were being "developed transparently - in line with charity law".

    Mullally, who currently serves as the Bishop of London, will take up her new role as the first-ever female Archbishop of Canterbury next month.

    The Church of England's slavery links proposal was announced in January 2023, external following the publication of a report into the Church's historical links to transatlantic slavery.

    The report, external, requested by the Church's financing arm - the Church Commissioners - found that a fund established by Queen Anne in 1704 to help poor Anglican clergy was used to finance "great evil".

    According to the report, the fund, known as Queen Anne's Bounty, invested in African chattel enslavement and took donations derived from it.

    After the report's publication, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said he was "deeply sorry" for the links and said action would be taken to address the Church's "shameful past".

    The Church Commissioners announced a new £100m fund, committed over a nine-year period, to be spent on "a programme of investment, research and engagement" in communities damaged by the enslavement of African people during the transatlantic slave trade.

    However, in their letter to Mullally, MPs and peers have urged the Church to focus on "strengthening parishes" rather than on pursuing what they describe as "high-profile and legally dubious vanity projects".'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e7w03067o

    There are a couple of things going on here. I'm not at all sure there is a viable legal case - there will be various precedents in a period since 1704, but I doubt they will try it.

    There's obviously populist right politics, with a seach for attention - this is people like Lam, Philp and Lord Biggar (Regent College Vancouver, and Latimer House, Cambridge, amongst others).

    But politically it will be interesting, and for pressure they will leverage Parliamentary on normally non-contentious Church of England legislation in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and gum up the works.

    That was a game Danny Kruger was playing last autumn.
    Indeed, this is populism.

    While sympathetic though to the MPs and peers pushing more funds for Parishes, if any income from the 1704 bounty can be directly linked to investments in slave trading companies I can see why the C of E commissioners are doing what they are proposing. That income, only that income mind, should be used to fund projects in Africa and the Caribbean and maybe support churches with large Black British congregations England.

    I know a few aristocratic families maybe even the King are also looking at their assets to see if they can make reparations for any income from slavery. Older companies like Barclays and Greene King and Lloyds of London and RBS (now Natwest) are also potentially affected. Greene King is looking into reparations and Lloyds of London invests in BAME projects as a result, as did RBS. Oxbridge colleges and some of the oldest public schools too could be implicated, some colleges increasing scholarships for black students from the Caribbean and Africa
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/barclays-hsbc-and-lloyds-among-uk-banks-that-had-links-to-slavery
    IMHO, if money is being used for good purposes, 2-300 years down the line, it has lost its taint. More than a few people who have created fortunes did so by unethical means.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025