After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
Trump couldn't even overturn the 2020 presidential election when he was on the ballot.
If Vance had replaced him as President Trump would even want Vance to lose as revenge
He's a lot more prepared now, as we've seen. 2020 he was in a scramble trying to overturn and didnt have the people in place to do it - Pence found a moral line he could not cross, judges were not playing ball on his frivolous suits, law enforcement wouldn't act on nothing, and when he tried to repace the acting AG with a patsy because they wouldn't persue it he was faced down by threat of mass legal counsel resignations.
None of those barriers are there now. He appointed people explicitly who would have followed his orders in 2020.
You're repeating the error McConnell made that because his attempts to overturn failed there is no worry about someine trying again more competently.
It was the armed forces who stopped Trump in 2021 as they did not back his coup attempt. They take an oath to the constitution not the President
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
It's surely on the money. But it only changes the narrative slightly.
The mainline story right now is that Mandleson kept the worst of his associations secret and was appointed by Starmer, not knowing the full story, as 'best man for the job'. Mandleson's career blew up when the real truth started to emerge, and Starmer becomes tainted by implication for being credulous/not digging deeper/managing a crap vetting process - or, just possibly - over-riding serious concerns that the vetting did manage to dig up (in which case he really is gone). As well as over-looking Mandleson's long history of being dodgy.
The real story may very well be that Mandleson was given the job precisely because he lived in the slime and had possible leverage over Trump and/or other powerful Americans. So he was appointed with open eyes, as a calculated risk, that has blown up when the reality of all the slime became public knowledge. In this scenario it's probable that the security service, whose way of working this resembles, knew all of this and were on the inside in terms of the strategy, in which case it's going to be embarassing their working out what they can say about what would have been a sham vetting. In this case Starmer is on the hook for what may have been a wise calculated risk, provided that the whole thing remained secret. Which, now, it hasn't.
It’s fair enough that Starmer wanted someone who could deal with what’s a very unpredictable administration in Washington, but by all accounts the lady who was already there was well-known and well-respected by Trump’s people.
Starmer took what he thought was a calculated risk, and it’s blown up in his face. Politically it could be a matter of life and death for the PM, unless he can prove that Mandy lied to him. Surely a lawyer would ask if there is anything else to potentially come out of the Epstein files, given that it was already known that the two had associated together.
That the association continued after Epstein’s conviction is the big problem. It’s one thing to hang out with the guy who hosts the best parties, but not continuing to do so after he’s been in prison because some of the party girls were underage.
Indeed. Even if Starmer's choice was wise, in terms of calculated risk (being 'respected' by Trump doesn't count for much; having leverage over him is a lot more powerful), it was always an immoral choice. But, back when he was appointed, I can't recall how likely it was looking that the Epstein files were heading for publication - wasn't Trump & co. trying to avoid doing so?
From looking back at the timeline, Mandy was appointed after Trump’s election but before he took office. Now Trump himself didn’t say an awful lot about the Epstein files, but a number of his supporters had talked a lot of out it during the campaign. To them it was a priority.
From what we’ve seen this week from all the emails, a lot of Epstein’s close associates thought his conviction to be unfair, almost as if he was a victim of girls lying about their age. From what we know now, the underage girls were more likely part of a deliberate scheme to generate compromat on the partygoers.
Joe Rogan’s guest the other day was Mike Benz, a data guy who spends more than an hour talking about Epstein, and following the money to work out what was going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqDA9W4Vo0
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
Trump couldn't even overturn the 2020 presidential election when he was on the ballot.
If Vance had replaced him as President Trump would even want Vance to lose as revenge
He's a lot more prepared now, as we've seen. 2020 he was in a scramble trying to overturn and didnt have the people in place to do it - Pence found a moral line he could not cross, judges were not playing ball on his frivolous suits, law enforcement wouldn't act on nothing, and when he tried to repace the acting AG with a patsy because they wouldn't persue it he was faced down by threat of mass legal counsel resignations.
None of those barriers are there now. He appointed people explicitly who would have followed his orders in 2020.
You're repeating the error McConnell made that because his attempts to overturn failed there is no worry about someine trying again more competently.
Your last word gives me hope. The idea that Trump could do something competently is too far-fetched to be credible.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Thank you for deciding how I may vote. I’ve voted Labour at every election I voted in.
I could quite easily consider voting Labour again based on a few provisos. It helps that I like my Labour MP as he seems to do a bit for the seat. The main reason I’d vote for them being they get the economy going and people feel better off. They also need to stop punishing working people to aid the economically unproductive, underutilised or inactive.
Their latest wheeze looks like the new TV license settlement will see what you pay will be income related. We are rapidly reaching the stage where it is not worth striving at work.
I don’t like Rayner. She’s dense and too tribal. I doubt she could build a consensus. The people who do like her seem to are mainly middle class types who seem to see her as the working class Everyman, or in this case woman.
If Labour does apppoint Rayner, they have finally caught up with the Tories in having a female leader (albeit it has taken half a century to catch up).
The markets will be wary of her "left-wing credentials", which will likely box in what she can actually achieve. Not sure if that will satisfy those MPs putting their faith in her.
As an aside, I think the LibDems will need to move on from Davey. I reckon Daisy Cooper will be leading the LibDems within 6 months of PM Ange...
There's a lot to be said for a generational clear out. If the reading of recent times is that the years 2005-2024 were generally rubbish, part of moving on is going to be having people who weren't associated with that in charge. And that's true for the opposition as much as the government.
(Spain saw the same thing post-Franco. His prominent opponents struggled just as much as his prominent ministers in the democracy.)
Starmer has a massive problem there, but so does Badenoch and Davey. And Burnham. And if you change those faces, Farage looks even more like a relic of worse times.
The only question is what it always was- who runs things while the next viable generation emerges?
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I'm serious, Jimmy Saville is dead. Check it on wikipedia.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Thank you for deciding how I may vote. I’ve voted Labour at every election I voted in.
I could quite easily consider voting Labour again based on a few provisos. It helps that I like my Labour MP as he seems to do a bit for the seat. The main reason I’d vote for them being they get the economy going and people feel better off. They also need to stop punishing working people to aid the economically unproductive, underutilised or inactive.
Their latest wheeze looks like the new TV license settlement will see what you pay will be income related. We are rapidly reaching the stage where it is not worth striving at work.
I don’t like Rayner. She’s dense and too tribal. I doubt she could build a consensus. The people who do like her seem to are mainly middle class types who seem to see her as the working class Everyman, or in this case woman.
If Labour does apppoint Rayner, they have finally caught up with the Tories in having a female leader (albeit it has taken half a century to catch up).
The markets will be wary of her "left-wing credentials", which will likely box in what she can actually achieve. Not sure if that will satisfy those MPs putting their faith in her.
As an aside, I think the LibDems will need to move on from Davey. I reckon Daisy Cooper will be leading the LibDems within 6 months of PM Ange...
I think you’re right on Davey and there are already mutterings about him.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I'm serious, Jimmy Saville is dead. Check it on wikipedia.
Comments
From what we’ve seen this week from all the emails, a lot of Epstein’s close associates thought his conviction to be unfair, almost as if he was a victim of girls lying about their age. From what we know now, the underage girls were more likely part of a deliberate scheme to generate compromat on the partygoers.
Joe Rogan’s guest the other day was Mike Benz, a data guy who spends more than an hour talking about Epstein, and following the money to work out what was going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqDA9W4Vo0
(Spain saw the same thing post-Franco. His prominent opponents struggled just as much as his prominent ministers in the democracy.)
Starmer has a massive problem there, but so does Badenoch and Davey. And Burnham. And if you change those faces, Farage looks even more like a relic of worse times.
The only question is what it always was- who runs things while the next viable generation emerges?