Harris V Trump - The US Election - The Results

[mark61]

Nov 12, 2024 9:14:31 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Nov 12, 2024 9:09:25 GMT neilj said:

Yes and in this case it's very clear Trump is substantially worse, so that's where the media should in a fair and balanced world direct their fire

As to activists not liking negative comments other side, not sure where you've been, but if anything Starmer gets more criticism from those on the left than those on the right

Yes, like I said, no one is saying the media shouldn’t challenge on climate. No one has said that. It’s a complete strawman. The discussion arose over the issue of slagging off Republicans for having control of some media, while not being concerned about Democrats having control of other media. 

And there isn’t much you can say to deny that, unless you try and pretend that it’s still ok because the Democrat-controlled media never talk shite. Which doesn’t work, so now you just have to keep focusing on something else: the obvious fact that sometimes Republicans talk shite. 

Which is not in contention. It’s a distraction from the point that activists don’t tend to like to engage with: that sometimes their preferred media talk shite too.

I wonder do you give credence to the idea that in the USA the legacy media as it is called may be more critical of the Republicans in recent years because the current iteration under Trump are unlike anything seen in the US for a ling time and are potentially a threat to Democratic norms?  I don't know the answer to this but is it perhaps the case there was a better balance when the Bush dynasty of Trad. republicans held sway?
Sorry to bring up Musk again, but it seems to me there is a real difference between his platform and the Legacy media in that with the latter there are still some journalistic/Editorial standards at play, fact checking and belief in a verifiable truth, all of which seems absent on Twitter and that's without discussing the way the Algorithm is tweaked.  
I note you often mention the Telegraph in these sorts of discussions suggesting LoC posters dismiss it in it's entirety whilst lapping up the contents of the Guardian, I don't know whether you subscribe on line or buy a print copy but I wonder whether you would accept that it has changed over the last few years, it was in my view formerly a solid paper of record albeit slightly to the right of the Times, i don't think that claim stands up anymore. I would be interested in your views.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 10:24:22 GMT domjg said:

Lots of, to my mind disingenuous, defence of false equivalence on here at the moment. Do you all work for the BBC?

In seriousness at some point of extremist rhetoric, which has more than been reached by Trump and his acolytes 'equivalence' simply becomes normalising the indefensible. The 'balance' that functions as  such a religion at the aforementioned BBC only works when the two points of view aired are at least based on the same source of truth (ie reality) and not too far removed from each other. I don't remember the BBC granting exponents of communism editorial equivalence during the cold war.

No, you are making something of a false equivalence yourself. No one is saying Trump shouldn’t be criticised. Nor that you shouldn’t conclude that on balance he might be worse.

At issue is the idea that just because you think Trump is worse, others should be beyond criticism. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 10:28:02 GMT mark61 said:

Nov 12, 2024 9:14:31 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yes, like I said, no one is saying the media shouldn’t challenge on climate. No one has said that. It’s a complete strawman. The discussion arose over the issue of slagging off Republicans for having control of some media, while not being concerned about Democrats having control of other media. 

And there isn’t much you can say to deny that, unless you try and pretend that it’s still ok because the Democrat-controlled media never talk shite. Which doesn’t work, so now you just have to keep focusing on something else: the obvious fact that sometimes Republicans talk shite. 

Which is not in contention. It’s a distraction from the point that activists don’t tend to like to engage with: that sometimes their preferred media talk shite too.

I wonder do you give credence to the idea that in the USA the legacy media as it is called may be more critical of the Republicans in recent years because the current iteration under Trump are unlike anything seen in the US for a ling time and are potentially a threat to Democratic norms?  I don't know the answer to this but is it perhaps the case there was a better balance when the Bush dynasty of Trad. republicans held sway?
Sorry to bring up Musk again, but it seems to me there is a real difference between his platform and the Legacy media in that with the latter there are still some journalistic/Editorial standards at play, fact checking and belief in a verifiable truth, all of which seems absent on Twitter and that's without discussing the way the Algorithm is tweaked.  
I note you often mention the Telegraph in these sorts of discussions suggesting LoC posters dismiss it in it's entirety whilst lapping up the contents of the Guardian, I don't know whether you subscribe on line or buy a print copy but I wonder whether you would accept that it has changed over the last few years, it was in my view formerly a solid paper of record albeit slightly to the right of the Times, i don't think that claim stands up anymore. I would be interested in your views.

Several non-trivial questions in there, so sorry for the lengthy response! Yes, it may indeed be the case that Trump deserves more criticism if he does more bad stuff. But this doesn’t mean that one should therefore ignore better stuff or pretend that the pro-Democrat angles aren’t ever flawed.

The problem is that to many activists, the most important thing is that Trump is defeated. And so therefore it is okay to slant the arguments, and to seek to control the media. And when you go down that road, it fucks up democracy some more, and even worse outcomes may result. (Trump’s ascendancy is in part a reaction to Democrat control of the media. Trump and Musk have learned how to outdo that). 

regarding Musk’s actions, I have already ceded to neilj that they might be considered an escalation. But the problem is that there had already been an escalation in the Democrats controlling so much media. 

I subscribe online to the Telegraph, and indeed have been watching it changing, and it has been interesting if a little scary! I have also been subscribing at various times to the independent, the Guardian and the Times, and watched the changes. This is part of the reason for being interested in the balanced analysis. You get to watch the changes and pick up bits as to how and why things change.

I watched The Guardian change too, back in the day, into a coalition-supporting peddler of austerity. I saw some of the journalists being quite horrified that decision, and what happened to the comment section when many commenters hadn’t realised the paper was liberal, not really left wing.

I’ve watched it shift a bit more to the left these days as the perils of privatisation become more evident. Meanwhile at the Telegraph, you can see that because they are so dependent on a paid subscriber model, they actually have to do more to reflect the views of the readers, than the Guardian might have to since the latter have independent funding. 

The Guardian could keep peddling austerity, despite the horror that it caused among their leadership, and some of their journalists. The Telegraph still get to try and shape the agenda to some extent, but have to aim things a lot more at their readership. Since a lot of their readership have given up with the Tories and are now more for Reform, things have slanted more that way.

The extent to which the Telegraph have to adapt to the readership has quite shocked me really, I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t been a subscriber. These days they get real-time feedback on which headlines get clicked and how long people stay reading the article. Consequently, they can tailor articles to play to that. You can see the headlines changing through the day in response. I know that happens elsewhere, but it seems to happen a lot more at the Telegraph.

So to summarise, even if we accept the Telegraph is a lot worse than it used to be, there are still reasons to keep reading it. One is the reason I’ve just given: to observe how they operate and develop their methods and respond to things. Also to observe how they try and shape things, or are themselves shaped. And to compare how a more subscriber-based model operates as opposed to a more trust-based model like the Guardian.

It might be worth considering that I used to work in a media department in HE,, where I taught media theory some of the time, and we analysed media! 

A second reason for continuing to read the Telegraph, even if it was utterly hopeless, is that you can see what opinions the readers express in the comments, which can be quite illuminating. (Bear in mind that some subscribers are more like me: they are not that keen on your typical Telegraph views either, and they enter into debates in the comments. Although I don’t do that myself)

of course in reality, the newspaper does have some useful info, that you won’t find in the Guardian. If you confine yourself to the Guardian, you’ll not have the complete picture. 

The same applies to the Times: they have stuff that neither the Telegraph nor the Guardian have. It was the Times who pointed out the influence of McSweeney earlier on, in particular how it meant that there was a degree of rejection of Blairism. A Rejection of the idea that you can just leave things to the middle class. 

[domjg]

mark61 re the Telegraph, it's little more than a newsletter for the tory membership these days with the corresponding relationship to reality. The Guardian is however little more now than a click baiting loc version of the DM, trying to survive it's anachronistic free to access model by provoking gasps of outrage and despair in it's liberal readership at any given opportunity.

With the exception of the FT and maybe the Economist the British print press is awful compared to those of other countries, even other English speaking countries. It's one reason why I stick almost entirely to the European press. The only reason I've had to read anything in the Guardian recently was the review for the new series of Wolf Hall.

[leftieliberal]

Nov 12, 2024 10:39:34 GMT domjg said:

mark61 re the Telegraph, it's little more than a newsletter for the tory membership these days with the corresponding relationship to reality. The Guardian is however little more these days than a click baiting loc version of the DM, trying to survive it's anachronistic free to access model by provoking gasps of outrage and despair in it's liberal readership at any given opportunity.

With the exception of the FT and maybe the Economist the British print press is awful compared to those of other countries, even other English speaking countries. It's one reason why I stick almost entirely to the European press. The only reason I've had to read anything in the Guardian recently was the review for the new series of Wolf Hall.

Actually the i newspaper, the only one I subscribe to (they have a good deal on electronic access to the paper during the week and a physical copy at the weekend), is quite reasonably balanced, although even they have one or two columnists who are rabidly one side or the other. 

[leftieliberal]

Nov 12, 2024 9:21:05 GMT shevii said:

Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️‍⚧️
@leftiestats
❗️ NEW: Tories LEAD in first poll of Badenoch era

🟦 CON 29% (+3)
🟥 LAB 27% (-1)
🟪 REF 19% (+1)
🟧 LD 11% (-3)
🟩 GRN 8% (-)

Via
@moreincommon_
, 8-11 Nov (+/- vs 1 Nov)

Mark Can we have a new thread now, please.

[neilj]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w
"So there seem to be two strands emerging in analysing the Democrat defeat. One strand, is to say that it is down to things like “less educated” people falling for lies and distortions, and unable to tell the left apart, and young men being persuaded by masculine posturings etc.

And the other argument is more economic: that liberal economics at least as currently practised tends to pull the ladder up from more people, and they are reacting to that"

You're over complicating it, the underlying reason is that it's a bad time to be an incumbent. A lot of incumbent governments have been getting punished across the World due to the economic turmoil, US politics isn't any different.
Harris couldn't shake that off

Surprising it was as close as it was, suspect almost any other Republican candidate would have had a much bigger win

[steve]

"That's without the numerous allegations of shady business practices and his conduct in office"

It's not just allegations the trump organisation has been fined half a billion dollars over its fraudulent business practices .

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 11:09:58 GMT neilj said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w
"So there seem to be two strands emerging in analysing the Democrat defeat. One strand, is to say that it is down to things like “less educated” people falling for lies and distortions, and unable to tell the left apart, and young men being persuaded by masculine posturings etc.

And the other argument is more economic: that liberal economics at least as currently practised tends to pull the ladder up from more people, and they are reacting to that"

You're over complicating it, the underlying reason is that it's a bad time to be an incumbent. A lot of incumbent governments have been getting punished across the World due to the economic turmoil, US politics isn't any different.
Harris couldn't shake that off

Surprising it was as close as it was, suspect almost any other Republican candidate would have had a much bigger win

Well, I take your point Neil, though I wouldn’t say it was that I was over complicating it. It was more the case that it wasn’t quite complicated enough!

So yes, we might say there are three strands rather than two. Although you are proffering another economic argument, it might be considered distinct from the one I mentioned. (There may be more strands if people want to point them out…)

(It isn’t a given though that if you have bad economic times, you will get ejected. But it is not easy…).

[steve]

domjg
BBC 1938 edition
" Some have questioned chancellor Hitler over his policies of racial genocide but why does the 11.37 to Frankfurt run better under his government than it ever did under yours?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 11:19:59 GMT steve said:

domjg
BBC 1938 edition
" Some have questioned chancellor Hitler over his policies of racial genocide but why does the 11.37 to Frankfurt run better under his government than it ever did under yours?

You could still question some of the Allies bombing campaigns though. You might prefer the Russians helped defeat Hitler but would you gloss over Katyn?

And would you pretend Von Braun didn’t revolutionise space flight post-war?

Trump didn’t pursue wars like Blair did, in dodgy ways. Would you write off everything Blair did as a result.

[neilj]

For those that are looking for an alternative to the far right racist hate fueled Cesspit that twitters become under Musk, there is an alternative
www.theverge.com/2024/11/11/24293920/bluesky-700000-new-users-week-x-threads
Bluesky gained more than 700,000 new users in the last week and now has more than 14.5 million users total...The “majority” of the new users on the decentralized social network are from the US

The results of the US presidential election could be part of Bluesky’s new influx of users. People may be looking to use a platform that’s not owned by Musk or, like some Taylor Swift fans, may be looking for a new platform following an increase in hate speech on X'

[steve]

domjg
I feel that a tad unfair on the guardian at least the online edition.
Just had a quick glance at front page and it's basically straight news reporting , I'm sure you can find plenty of left of centre takes however there's some real journalism going on and I fundamentally disagree about it's free to view access, it's why it's the second most widely viewed newspaper in the world and as an information source is second only to the BBC in the uk.

[pjw1961]

Nov 12, 2024 0:42:47 GMT mercian said:

Nov 11, 2024 19:56:45 GMT pjw1961 said:

But how do you have balance between fiction and reality? It is the same logic as used to make the BBC have one distinguished scientist explaining the evidence based scientific consensus on climate change and someone like the late Lord Lawson talking complete bollocks (with a financial agenda that never got a mention) and think that represented "balance". At least they seem to have outgrown that nonsense. 


 

Yes let's hope that they only ever present leftie opinions from now on (which is pretty much true anyway).   

Climate change is not a "leftie opinion". It shouldn't be party political at all and it is deeply alarming that it has become so. Just a reminder that Margaret Thatcher, with her science background, understood and fully accepted the science. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 11:26:56 GMT neilj said:

For those that are looking for an alternative to the far right racist hate fueled Cesspit that twitters become under Musk, there is an alternative
www.theverge.com/2024/11/11/24293920/bluesky-700000-new-users-week-x-threads
Bluesky gained more than 700,000 new users in the last week and now has more than 14.5 million users total...The “majority” of the new users on the decentralized social network are from the US

The results of the US presidential election could be part of Bluesky’s new influx of users. People may be looking to use a platform that’s not owned by Musk or, like some Taylor Swift fans, may be looking for a new platform following an increase in hate speech on X'

are they posting loads of stuff about how democrats lost because of all the uneducated people who can’t tell the left apart and how it’s the young men’s fault for being influenced by masculinity etc.?

[pjw1961]

Nov 12, 2024 0:54:43 GMT mercian said:

Nov 11, 2024 21:42:30 GMT mark61 said:

I'm surprised you use the example of Climate science, are you seriously suggesting that this is still a debate, it is not only the weight on one side in terms of numbers but it is the quality of their work compared to the other side.   There is a growing community on the internet that maintains the earth is flat, do you give that credence?    
I will be interested in how your view of Musk develops over the next few years.

and @pjw61 
c-a-r-f-r-e-w specifically said man-made climate change, which you both ignored.

Because it is a bogus distinction. The climate does indeed change over time for a variety of reasons, but the current global heating is man-made. The science is entirely clear on that. Actually the basic physics of green house gases causing warming is very simple stuff and was identified in the 1850s. 

(Carfrew's point about climate modelling being highly complex is true, but also a red herring in terms of needing to act). 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 11:42:09 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 12, 2024 0:42:47 GMT mercian said:

Yes let's hope that they only ever present leftie opinions from now on (which is pretty much true anyway).   

Climate change is not a "leftie opinion". It shouldn't be party political at all and it is deeply alarming that it has become so. Just a reminder that Margaret Thatcher, with her science background, understood and fully accepted the science. 

Lots of people have a science background PJ, it doesn’t mean they understand the science. Even at Oxford, most struggled with the science, which is why they end up in management, or indeed politics even, not pursuing science as a career. 

this is the problem with credentialism. Passing exams does not guarantee ability, when exams are designed to be passed by most people regardless. Even working in the industry, making ice cream, doesn’t mean that you will understand complex climate modelling.

it is the case that it is a shame that things like climate change get politicised, however, sadly it is quite inevitable. Dealing with climate change can challenge some political models, since it may require quite a lot of state action that some are not keen on. It can also be potentially quite an earner for some researchers, and indeed industries. Some who would like to keep the working class down by deindustrialising, may also not be keen on having copious energy supplies.


It can be an earner for middle-class people too who are not in the sector, investing in energy schemes, and so on. Medicine is another area of science that gets politicised, as we saw in the pandemic.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 11:46:24 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 12, 2024 0:54:43 GMT mercian said:

and @pjw61 
c-a-r-f-r-e-w specifically said man-made climate change, which you both ignored.

Because it is a bogus distinction. The climate does indeed change over time for a variety of reasons, but the current global heating is man-made. The science is entirely clear on that. Actually the basic physics of green house gases causing warming is very simple stuff and was identified in the 1850s. 

(Carfrew's point about climate modelling being highly complex is true, but also a red herring in terms of needing to act). 

I already said in the past that we should react regardless. It can be useful to get better at controlling the climate. We may wish actually to put more carbon in the atmosphere if we enter an ice age! And we may find it useful to extract the carbon to make it into things like graphene. Even if fossil fuels didn’t affect the atmosphere, we might still worry about using up the resources and all the micro plastics etc.

However, it is not a red herring. Climate can have complex effects. It is possible some parts of the world benefit more than expected, and some may be worse than expected. If we just trust the modelling, we won’t be prepared for what could happen. 

[domjg]

Nov 12, 2024 11:19:59 GMT steve said:

domjg
BBC 1938 edition
" Some have questioned chancellor Hitler over his policies of racial genocide but why does the 11.37 to Frankfurt run better under his government than it ever did under yours?

It's a scenario that occurred to me as well!

[pjw1961]

Nov 12, 2024 11:48:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:42:09 GMT pjw1961 said:

Climate change is not a "leftie opinion". It shouldn't be party political at all and it is deeply alarming that it has become so. Just a reminder that Margaret Thatcher, with her science background, understood and fully accepted the science. 

Lots of people have a science background PJ, it doesn’t mean they understand the science. Even at Oxford, most struggled with the science, which is why they end up in management, or indeed politics even, not pursuing science as a career. 

this is the problem with credentialism. Passing exams does not guarantee ability, when exams are designed to be passed by most people regardless. Even working in the industry, making ice cream, doesn’t mean that you will understand complex climate modelling.

it is the case that it is a shame that things like climate change get politicised, however, sadly it is quite inevitable. Dealing with climate change. Can challenge some political models, since it may require quite a lot of state action that some are not keen on. It can also be potentially quite an earner for some researchers, and indeed industries. 

It can be an earner for middle-class people too who are not in the sector, investing in energy, schemes, and so on. Medicine is another area of science to gets politicised, as we saw in the pandemic

Sorry for not appreciating that Margaret Thatcher, research chemist, barrister and one of the two or three most consequential Prime Ministers of the 20th century was actually a bit thick compared to your towering intellect. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 12:02:18 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:48:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Lots of people have a science background PJ, it doesn’t mean they understand the science. Even at Oxford, most struggled with the science, which is why they end up in management, or indeed politics even, not pursuing science as a career. 

this is the problem with credentialism. Passing exams does not guarantee ability, when exams are designed to be passed by most people regardless. Even working in the industry, making ice cream, doesn’t mean that you will understand complex climate modelling.

it is the case that it is a shame that things like climate change get politicised, however, sadly it is quite inevitable. Dealing with climate change. Can challenge some political models, since it may require quite a lot of state action that some are not keen on. It can also be potentially quite an earner for some researchers, and indeed industries. 

It can be an earner for middle-class people too who are not in the sector, investing in energy, schemes, and so on. Medicine is another area of science to gets politicised, as we saw in the pandemic

Sorry for not appreciating that Margaret Thatcher, research chemist, barrister and one of the two or three most consequential Prime Ministers of the 20th century was actually a bit thick compared to your towering intellect. 

Well she did a bit on ice cream - you might not be aware lots doing science at Oxford start out doing a little bit in the labs in industry like her for a couple of years before being moved on to management because the science obviously is not going to go anywhere. But I didn’t say I understood it either PJ. Not many properly understand it, if any: it’s very complicated, speculative and there is quite some variation in the models. The difference is I’m aware of that whereas you just assume “you can trust the science.”

which, unless you have been delving into loads of papers, likely means you trust what the media reflect of the science

This is the problem with credentialism. The conceit that it necessarily  means someone is an expert. It’s like you did History but are in charge of a cancer plan? You make basic errors when discussing Covid. You don’t even seem to know there are issues with mRNA vaccines and the potential cancer link. You rubbished AI and yet it’s set to make big changes to medicine including cancer diagnoses. Scary.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 11, 2024 21:28:27 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 11, 2024 20:45:09 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Thanks PJ. I meant to edit that and put just mRNA vaccines! But got waylaid! What about the new mRNA vaccines specifically? 

I don't claim to be any sort of expert and I'm happy to follow the scientific consensus*. However, the basic theory of how they work seems unproblematic. I would be happy to have one. 
ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2024/03/11/what-are-mrna-vaccines-and-how-do-they-work/

* Yes I know the consensus both develops over time as new evidence emerges (i.e. normal scientific process) and is sometimes wrong and the iconoclasts are right - but that doesn't mean the latter are usually right. The consensus is correct most of the time. 

well, you kind of need to be an expert, PJ, because you’re supposed to be in charge of the cancer plan, and there is currently a debate over mRNA vaccines being implicated in cancer.

It might not yet have reached a consensus though. I trusted the consensus in hospital at first, before I realised that wasn’t the best plan…

And the consensus sounds like a lovely word, but it can also mean individuals being subject to the mob.

[hireton]

"Watching the death of enlightenment.

Is that the same enlightenment that calls anybody concerned about immigration a racist. Or the same enlightenment that bans speakers from Universities because students might be upset.Or the same enlightenment that wants to rewrite history because it offends some people. Or the death of enlightenment that sends people to jail for making comments on the internet whilst letting sex offenders go free.

You need to wake up when your talking about enlightenment instead of looking at it from a left wing point of view ,political correctness has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom that Trump and his cronies are ever likely to do."

Well the Enlightenment rested on three pillars: a rejection of received wisdom as the sole source of legitimate authority; the importance of individual reason in understanding and influencing the world; the freedom to express views without repression by the state and other institutions, principally the various Christian sects and their institutions.

It is difficult to see how "political correctness", however the polemicist using that term wishes to define it, has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom than Trump and his cronies have ever done. It is not "political correctness" which is reducing the rights of individuals to make decisions on abortion and killing women in the process . It is not "political correctness" which is banning books in public and school libraries. It is not "political correctness" which is actively pursuing voter suppression. And so on.

More globally, it is not, for example, "political correctness" which is at work in Hungary in damaging freedom nor in Uganda in persecuting gay people nor in Iran in the suppression of women's rights nor in the Israeli state's suppression of Palestinian identity and nationhood.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 12, 2024 12:15:25 GMT hireton said:

Well the Enlightenment rested on three pillars: a rejection of received wisdom as the sole source of legitimate authority; the importance of individual reason in understanding and influencing the world; the freedom to express views without repression by the state and other institutions, principally the various Christian sects and their institutions.

👍👍👍


Given that, kinda ironic PJ brought up Enlightenment. (We could include “without repression by political activists” as well)

[leftieliberal]

Nov 12, 2024 12:02:18 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:48:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Lots of people have a science background PJ, it doesn’t mean they understand the science. Even at Oxford, most struggled with the science, which is why they end up in management, or indeed politics even, not pursuing science as a career. 

this is the problem with credentialism. Passing exams does not guarantee ability, when exams are designed to be passed by most people regardless. Even working in the industry, making ice cream, doesn’t mean that you will understand complex climate modelling.

it is the case that it is a shame that things like climate change get politicised, however, sadly it is quite inevitable. Dealing with climate change. Can challenge some political models, since it may require quite a lot of state action that some are not keen on. It can also be potentially quite an earner for some researchers, and indeed industries. 

It can be an earner for middle-class people too who are not in the sector, investing in energy, schemes, and so on. Medicine is another area of science to gets politicised, as we saw in the pandemic

Sorry for not appreciating that Margaret Thatcher, research chemist, barrister and one of the two or three most consequential Prime Ministers of the 20th century was actually a bit thick compared to your towering intellect. 

You mean that Margaret Thatcher, who faced with the bounty of North Sea oil, instead of investing it and creating a sovereign wealth fund (as the sensible Norwegians, to name just one country, did) spaffed it up the wall by cutting taxes and paying people to be unemployed. Even the Dutch, faced with a much smaller bounty from their natural gas, used it to improve the infrastructure of their country. So, yes, Maggie was a bit thick. If she had studied history or economics (or the right part of it), she would have known about the damage that the gold and silver of South and Central America did to the economy of Spain in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

[Danny]

Nov 12, 2024 10:28:02 GMT mark61 said:

I wonder do you give credence to the idea that in the USA the legacy media as it is called may be more critical of the Republicans in recent years because the current iteration under Trump are unlike anything seen in the US for a ling time and are potentially a threat to Democratic norms?

Trump became candidate becuse of public dissatisfaction with the duopoly party system in the US. So you have to ask why they became dissatisfied and whether any revolution now underway is actually the fault of the two established parties for relying upon the system to keep them in power despite ignoring how most of the voters no longer supported them.

If the system has ceased to be democratic, then revolution to overthrow it is unsurprising.

[steve]

In the absence of our normal football correspondents quick mention of Gary Lineker leaving MOTD.

In addition to obviously being a world class footballer he's also one of of the best football commentators.

Unlike many footballers and commentators from the UK when he's worked overseas he's made efforts to integrate, his Spanish is about as good as mine was when working in Spain i.e. Ok, sufficient for commentary on Spanish tv and I understand his Japanese isn't bad either.

Lineker clearly has interests outside of football and hopefully we'll hear more from him in non sporting activities.


Here he is discussing his time at Barca


youtu.be/MEVerfvd0CE?si=su2mSqoMHjrpiOrH

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

mark61

Needed to add… the likes of Trump and Musk do things that are egregious. Deliberately so at times to attract attention. But the liberal media can support quite a lot of damage without being as overt about it. How much damage did austerity do? And the Guardian supported that.

But though people list possible outcomes of Trump’s actions, they won’t list the damage done by austerity and the Guardian’s role in that.

How many lives are damaged by massive rising rents and property prices that has occurred under the kind of economics the Guardian supported? And likely by many in the media in the States. (The Graun may have softened a little these days…)

How about people compare the damage done by Trump to people’s lives in his last term, with the damage done by Blair to people’s lives in Iraq.

[Danny]

Nov 12, 2024 11:19:59 GMT steve said:

domjg
BBC 1938 edition
" Some have questioned chancellor Hitler over his policies of racial genocide but why does the 11.37 to Frankfurt run better under his government than it ever did under yours?

He probably used slave labour to build it instead of the HS2 shower.

[jib]