Rayvin

The problem with this is - yes, it's reasonable in the context and I don't judge him as a father for this. However... it's a man saving his kid at the expense of credibility of the "sane" side of politics. It's more ammunition for the people whose outlook is 'they're all the same'. It's something that the footsoldiers of sanity - people like us - now need to try to argue against and justify on his behalf in discussions the world over with morons. Hunter Biden absolutely did not deserve what likely would have come his way if he hadn't been pardoned, but I think the the needs of the many should have come first here.

Farage is trying to whip up hysteria about the Chagos Islands now, claiming the Trump government is outraged by it. The current US government has signed off on it at every level but honestly this is going to be the next few years. Farage backed by Trump/Musk is going to be the opposition, not the Tories.

I go back to this notion that the West needs to wake up to the fact that Russia declared war on us 10 years ago - I still recall PL posting that Cadwalladr tweet that said as much and it was an eye opening moment for me. A lot of the problems we are now seeing can be traced back to Putin (though I suspect it's now taken on a life of its own, sadly).

Also to be honest, I'm not a fan of his as you know, but you have quite rightly pointed out that he is achieving some things in amidst all of this. For his own sake - not mine, not for my philosophical position - I wish he was shouting and screaming about it more. Labour have continuously let others set the agenda ever since Blair with the exception of Corbyn's doomed run. Like the guy or not, he was chasing his own plan. Starmer needs to be calling out and challenging the bullshit narratives, he cannot just rely on people taking notice of the fact that he's doing a decent job under difficult circumstances. Biden proves that much.

I mean, I don't particularly subscribe to the notion that Truss' plan was fit for purpose at even a theoretical level tbh. I also trust professionals and experts for what it's worth, but having spent a lot of time around such educated people professionally, what is clear is that technocrats may be good at running things well, but not so much at running them towards any particular outcome. We go back to this need for vision. I'll take technocrats and responsible government all day long if there's some sort of direction we're moving in, and someone who can carry the rest of us with them. Starmer isn't that man.

Think this is spot on actually. And I suppose some would argue that Southgate managed England exceptionally well and had them achieve more than anyone else in living memory. But then others look at his reign and think that we could have had so much more if he'd just trusted his players more and went for it. Kinda curious where @Renton would line up on that argument actually, wonder if it's a risk management style that separates people on this.

He's ceding ground to the far right philosophically. I acknowledge the disagreements elsewhere but I suppose I'm referring to his initial pledges.

Ah, then they're safe. Fair.

Presumably with both the house and senate under republican control, along with the supreme court, an amendment should be possible for them? I mean what other structure would they need to control?

I think the main issue with Starmer is exactly what SBTP says, he's a coward. He's got a massive majority and yet acts as if there's only one seat in it. Fuck the press, fuck the Tories - who knows what the world looks like in 5 years ffs. There's no point worrying about that now, nothing they're doing at this point will be remembered by anyone by the time the next GE comes along. We need an Obama or a Blair, and instead we've got a Chamberlain - which would be understandable if it was actually working. But it's not. He's being eviscerated all over the place, looks weak to all sides. Starmer feels like a man who doesn't trust himself - he's abandoned a great many things he believed in, which should have formed the strong foundations he went into office with. He's someone who reacts to things, rather than sets his own agenda. Doesn't have the balls to impose himself. Let's hope he's just keeping the seat warm for someone better...

How far fetched is it to imagine that Trump changes the constitution to permit non-natural born citizen to become President? To me that feels more likely than any sort of coup or dismantling of democracy.

Makes a difference to you though. Increasingly I think that's all we can do, stand up for what we believe in just for our own sake.

I personally feel nowhere near enough is made out of Farage's past either tbh.

I was reading just before that the reason in particular Israel have sort of walked into this one is because Netanyahu refuses to launch an independent inquiry into the initial attack by Hamas, fearing it will expose him as being responsible for security failures. Had he done this, the arrest warrant wouldn't have been issued as the ICC would have entrusted the process to Israel's courts. He will have known this, so he clearly has something to hide. I think it's clear anyway that the focus of this war has switched from defeating Hamas to expanding Israeli land though.

I would also add that whether they voted for it or not, we democratically decided to make the country poorer. That impacts all of us. This is just a way that it will now impact them. No one escapes Brexit induced poverty whether they deserve it or not.

In fairness, I don't consider JOB to be a very honest debater most of the time in general and I do agree with your point there. It feels like the guy is basically saying that if the value of his land is over the threshold he's going to have to summon up a large amount of money from essentially nowhere against a 30k pa wage in order to keep it 'as is'. So I do sort of understand that. I would argue perhaps a better way of doing this would be to tax it at point of sale. Whenever the land is sold, it is taxed an appropriate level to compensate for having avoided inheritance tax. That said, Labour seem to be arguing that this isn't going to impact the vast majority of farmers so I'm not sure if this bloke would even be affected.

I can't help but feel that farmers sort of deserve whatever this is about after Brexit... but this one at least seems fucking angry

Absolutely spot on.

I'd prefer you didn't go mate, if that's worth anything. Even I get piled on in politics chat sometimes - that said, it's worth understanding that most of this forum is made up of lefties who are fucking angry at the world. Whether you agree or not, our vision of how things are is intensely bleak and getting worse by the day.

Normally I don't think I'd bother but I didn't have TDS down as this sort of poster - and I felt that maybe it was an honest enquiry and that perhaps some resistance to Musk's bullshit might be all that was needed. I fail to appreciate of course that everyone already has their opinion set in stone before anything is said. I was kind of interested myself in why it had happened though.

That's not me arguing this issue. That's me earnestly wanting an asteroid to wipe me out before Musk's banal idiocy ruins the entire Western world. Maybe I can find a hotel to be burned alive in the next time the sub 80 IQs gather.

Kill me now. We're all fucking doomed.

Mate, I've really tried but you're not interested in my reasoning. Fair enough, but you've got nothing to say on this in response other than refusing to acknowledge this issue on the level of detail that would be necessary to form any sort of judgement. So I'm done with this now.

The one on the shorter sentence is being released apparently - from what I can see he didn't actually carry out the violence which is presumably why. He got the manslaughter charge seemingly because he supplied the weapon to the guy who did (the longer sentence). That's my reading of it anyway. Why the fuck I've spent so much time on this is beyond me, but what is clear is that there are a lot of details to this that Musk and friends are willfully ignoring to be able to whip up hysteria.

If it was that simple, I would say no. But then I don't consider it that simple whatsoever, so again, I feel the question isn't relevant. Two months for inciting a riot that could have led to people being killed and mass violence if strong action wasn't taken (and those people were warned in real time but continued their stupidity anyway) versus a teenager stabbing a guy in the hand during a scuffle between two gangs (where the perpetrator's gang was the one being pursued) and unfortunately nicking a major blood vessel. Taking all the details out makes it sound bad, but honestly isn't a remotely fair way of interpreting it. It lacks all context. EDIT - actually the more i look at it, the more I feel like the guy who is being released was only actually responsible for sourcing the machete, not the actual killing blow or associated violence. I'm not positive on that but it appears to be what the court notes are saying. So it's 6 months for buying a machete that he knew would likely be used in violence.