Trump

[Puja]

I think he is literally too stupid to insult.

Cheer up. He may torpedo Boris's remaining political capital by coming out in support of him this month when he is over there "doing deals". He will say Boris offered to sell him Scotland or some such shit.

Should be a hoot.

That is my major hope in this election. Boris has already come out publically said, "Don't say anything," and I'd imagine has been even more fervent in private, but there is absolutely zero chance that Donald will believe that him chipping in will be anything but wonderful.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Won’t make a difference. BoJo is up against Corbyn, he may be a clown and broadly incompetent but he isn’t Corbyn.

[morepork]

Won’t make a difference. BoJo is up against Corbyn, he may be a clown and broadly incompetent but he isn’t Corbyn.

Boris is a thundering fuckhead. Corbyn must be pretty bad indeed if that pig fucker is preferable.

[WaspInWales]

Won’t make a difference. BoJo is up against Corbyn, he may be a clown and broadly incompetent but he isn’t Corbyn.

Boris is a thundering fuckhead. Corbyn must be pretty bad indeed if that pig fucker is preferable.

Corbyn hasn't helped himself by saying things like he would remain neutral in Brexit negotiations if elected. What a daft thing to say.

However, much of the shit directed at Corbyn has been grossly unfair, or just untrue. Fake news if you like. He isn't an anti-semite, he has however been critical of Israeli policies, and does have a very sympathetic ear towards Palestinians, as well as other people who lack a voice.

BoJo has corporations, rich people and powerful lobbies sucking up to him. Corbyn wants to increase tax for high earners, corps and has enough of a backbone to stand up for people suffering around the world...usually thanks to existing UK (and others) policies.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[morepork]

I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

[morepork]

Sounds like the abject terror struck into the hearts of rich folk over here by the Communist Sorceress Elizabeth Warren. Quite pathetic really.

[Digby]

I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

[Digby]

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

I do mean Labour putting up someone from their centre or even right. Someone in essence who reflects more where the country actually is politically and could get some more votes.

[paddy no 11]

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

I do mean Labour putting up someone from their centre or even right. Someone in essence who reflects more where the country actually is politically and could get some more votes.

Like a tory?

[Digby]

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

I do mean Labour putting up someone from their centre or even right. Someone in essence who reflects more where the country actually is politically and could get some more votes.

Like a tory?

I doubt you'd find many Tories between Corbyn and the right of the Labour Party, oddly they're probably already in the Tory party, the clue's in the name

[Mikey Brown]

Well I thought it was funny.

I'm curious who you might mean though, being on the right but currently part of the labour party? I don't know which other yellow tories were left behind when Umuna etc. jumped ship.

[Digby]

I'd ask what a yellow Tory is, but I'm not actually interested so happy to gloss over that.

The Labour Party for all it's been taken over by the Trots (what colour they?) in any number of leadership roles is still a broad church, there are plenty of party members and indeed parliamentary members who're much more comfortable with a left of centre social policy allied to some changes on the tax front whilst retaining far from confidence in a regulated market than the Trots, it's not like there was Chuka and everybody else in the party in two distinct groups.

[Mikey Brown]

Do I dare respond? I didn't think it was a massively contentious term and it certainly wasn't an attack on you.

[Digby]

How would I know if it's a contentious point? I'd need to know what it means to even be able to take a view.

[Digby]

Back on Trump, though I accept Morepork never lost contact with Trump for even a moment, I see the GOP have released their answer to the Congressional report into Trump using his office to commit crimes. And whilst it's not shocking in that they have doubled down over and over when it comes to backing Trump over reality it is shocking that any serious adult is willing to use public office to deny reality. I'd say for shame but I cannot imagine they feel any.

[Banquo]

How would I know if it's a contentious point? I'd need to know what it means to even be able to take a view.

Libdem I thought.

[Mikey Brown]

How would I know if it's a contentious point? I'd need to know what it means to even be able to take a view.

This is an absolutely baffling conversation. You told me you didn't know what it means, despite seemingly being offended by it, and then referenced it again in your reply. I'm just telling you that it wasn't anything offensive directed at you, which you've somehow taken either as an insult or just an excuse to be condescending.

Back to Trump indeed.

[Digby]

How would I know if it's a contentious point? I'd need to know what it means to even be able to take a view.

This is an absolutely baffling conversation. You told me you didn't know what it means, despite seemingly being offended by it, and then referenced it again in your reply. I'm just telling you that it wasn't anything offensive directed at you, which you've somehow taken either as an insult or just an excuse to be condescending.

Back to Trump indeed.

Your bafflement might be stemming from your assumption I was offended. I'd simply never heard anyone talk about Yellow Tories.

Banquo might be right it means a Lib Dem Tory, though given he's been Labour more than Lib Dei calling him a Red Tory seems more apt, or it might mean a gutless Tory, or it could mean something different again. Though as before I don't much care. And feck off, I don't need an excuse to be condescending, or wrong and in denial about it

[Banquo]

How would I know if it's a contentious point? I'd need to know what it means to even be able to take a view.

This is an absolutely baffling conversation. You told me you didn't know what it means, despite seemingly being offended by it, and then referenced it again in your reply. I'm just telling you that it wasn't anything offensive directed at you, which you've somehow taken either as an insult or just an excuse to be condescending.

Back to Trump indeed.

Your bafflement might be stemming from your assumption I was offended. I'd simply never heard anyone talk about Yellow Tories.

Banquo might be right it means a Lib Dem Tory, though given he's been Labour more than Lib Dei calling him a Red Tory seems more apt, or it might mean a gutless Tory, or it could mean something different again. Though as before I don't much care. And feck off, I don't need an excuse to be condescending, or wrong and in denial about it

or blue labour

[Mikey Brown]

How would I know if it's a contentious point? I'd need to know what it means to even be able to take a view.

This is an absolutely baffling conversation. You told me you didn't know what it means, despite seemingly being offended by it, and then referenced it again in your reply. I'm just telling you that it wasn't anything offensive directed at you, which you've somehow taken either as an insult or just an excuse to be condescending.

Back to Trump indeed.

Your bafflement might be stemming from your assumption I was offended. I'd simply never heard anyone talk about Yellow Tories.

Banquo might be right it means a Lib Dem Tory, though given he's been Labour more than Lib Dei calling him a Red Tory seems more apt, or it might mean a gutless Tory, or it could mean something different again. Though as before I don't much care. And feck off, I don't need an excuse to be condescending, or wrong and in denial about it

Okay. Think we’re back on track now.

[Digby]

"The Democrats nonetheless tell a story of an illicit pressure campaign run by President Trump through his personal attorney, Mayor Giuliani, to coerce Ukraine to investigate the President’s political rival by withholding a meeting and security assistance. There is, however, no direct, firsthand evidence of any such scheme.'

What an outstanding line from the GOP report. And yes, we would have to conclude as it stands its not without foundation, but only because Trump has blocked those with first hand evidence from testifying, and it seems odd to have any defence that says 'see I stopped the witness from speaking to what they saw, and this proves my innocence'

[Digby]

'The Democrats’ narrative is so dependent on speculation that one Democrat publicly justified hearsay as “better” than direct evidence'

I mean FFS, without context that's just sodding taking the piss. Hearsay might well be better than direct evidence, it's arrant nonsense to suggest otherwise, where are they getting the idea that writing this drivel is useful?

[Digby]

'The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.'

I'm not even sure what they mean by this because yes they did, do they mean the witnesses didn't use the words bribery or extortion? And if so why would anyone be expecting them to, forming a conclusion such as bribery isn't for those witnesses that have testified, they're only there to speak to facts they know about and are asked about.