SBAndy
Well-Known Member
Enjoyed clicking on the tweet and the first response was from Rupert Lowe saying “who cares”. For once, I am inclined to agree.
Why are UK parliamentarians campaigning for airports in another country? It’s utterly ridiculous.
If constituents are bugging their MPs about it then I can see the political logic in campaigning for something which will please/help your constituents without costing you anything. If you’re supposedly against more air travel in general though…Why are UK parliamentarians campaigning for airports in another country? It’s utterly ridiculous.
Not much good economic news around these days but this could really help provide a boost. Hope the government jumps on the opportunity and tries to make this an attractive option for companies with their industrial strategy later this year
UK companies set to spend $650bn bringing their factories home
UK companies set to spend $650bn bringing their factories home
Worries about supply chains, logistical costs, uncertainty and tariffs have prompted a wave of reshoring and nearshoringwww.thetimes.com
Article says that 440bn has already been spent since 2022
That's what I thought, sounds implausible that investment on that scale has happened already tbh. Could see if being committed to but not spentYeah, it’s not the best written article. I’m taking it as a further 650bn over next three year (ever the optimist) but paragraph later in article makes it less clear. Surprised this hasn’t moved the dial on productivity/ investment figures, hopefully it will at some point
Is this in dollar's again,also does this include football team's?Article says that 440bn has already been spent since 2022
Not sure how this has gone under the radar, but it is deeply concerning.
Trouble with supporters of far right populists is they'll just take it as people trying to silence them and likely just lead to them increasing their support.Marine la penn has been found guilty today and barred from running for the presidency for five year's and likely have to wear a tag like Sarkozye, apparently for using fund's for something different from what they were intended.
She was leading in the polls. This feels politically motivated.Marine la penn has been found guilty today and barred from running for the presidency for five year's and likely have to wear a tag like Sarkozye, apparently for using fund's for something different from what they were intended.
Trouble with supporters of far right populists is they'll just take it as people trying to silence them and likely just lead to them increasing their support.
Trouble with supporters of far right populists is they'll just take it as people trying to silence them and likely just lead to them increasing their support.
In what way was Trump made a martyr?Correct, but the reason for this is more simplistic.
The EU is rife with corruption and there are so many countries spending EU funds on things they shouldn't be. On a government level, and within corporations and businesses. Grants get given, the money dissappears. Here in the Czech Republic it is a big problem, as it is in Slovakia.
Then you've got Christine Lagarde and Ursula von der Leyen who hold top roles, but are up to their eyeballs in corruption. Unfortunately it just means it looks very rich when certain people get in trouble for fucking around, but not others.
Given that Le Pen is looking like she's got a chance in the election, it just looks deliberate. As does the judge saying the ruling is going to drag out. Then you've got what happened in Romania, and what VDL was saying before people went out to vote in Italy.
Like you say, in this case it will probably make her more of a martyr like it did with Trump.
In what way was Trump made a martyr?
Let’s be honest - in leaving the EU we’ve chosen to reject EU corruption in favour our own home grown version.Correct, but the reason for this is more simplistic.
The EU is rife with corruption and there are so many countries spending EU funds on things they shouldn't be. On a government level, and within corporations and businesses. Grants get given, the money dissappears. Here in the Czech Republic it is a big problem, as it is in Slovakia.
Then you've got Christine Lagarde and Ursula von der Leyen who hold top roles, but are up to their eyeballs in corruption. Unfortunately it just means it looks very rich when certain people get in trouble for fucking around, but not others.
Given that Le Pen is looking like she's got a chance in the election, it just looks deliberate. As does the judge saying the ruling is going to drag out. Then you've got what happened in Romania, and what VDL was saying before people went out to vote in Italy.
Like you say, in this case it will probably make her more of a martyr like it did with Trump.
An honest politician is as rare as hens teeth.Let’s be honest - in leaving the EU we’ve chosen to reject EU corruption in favour our own home grown version.
Let’s be honest - in leaving the EU we’ve chosen to reject EU corruption in favour our own home grown version.
How? Trump wasn’t favourite to win the Republican nominee and all the Republican candidates were dog piling on him and his record in government… Until the lawfare against him. All the republicans then backed Trump publicly, it undermines their own campaigns and Trump stormed to victory in the primaries.
Had the Democrats let it be, he may not have won the primaries, let alone the presidency.
"Lawfare"?
Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't. If you want your far right zealots to stay out of court, maybe pick ones who don't commit crimes.
Which court cases, specifically, were unfair. The sex pest one? The one where his company committed fraud? The one where he had boxes of classified documents at his personal residence? The one where he asked election officials to change an election result? The one where he encouraged his followers to storm the Capitol?
Are you for the law mate, or not?
Trump followers and the man himself seen to struggle with this issue, as indeed do the far right generally.
Strange that, it's almost like there's some lack of a consistent moral code in the corrupt, opportunist, nutters who rise to the top on the far right.
For starters, they were civil cases rather than criminal court cases.
To remain focused on the point, is that the legal action against Trump backfired massively because a) he won the Republican primary a lot more comfortably than expected and b) he was able to weaponise it for his presidential campaign.
Since he won both the Republican nominee and is now President, it’s fair to say that the legal action should’ve been taken after the election to avoid the perception of election inference. This cut through to US voters in polling pre-election and of course on election night.
Maybe he shouldn’t have committed the crimes then.For starters, they were civil cases rather than criminal court cases.
To remain focused on the point, is that the legal action against Trump backfired massively because a) he won the Republican primary a lot more comfortably than expected and b) he was able to weaponise it for his presidential campaign.
Since he won both the Republican nominee and is now President, it’s fair to say that the legal action should’ve been taken after the election to avoid the perception of election inference. This cut through to US voters in polling pre-election and of course on election night.
They weren't all civil cases, see link below.
Regardless, you're going to say that anyone standing for potential election should not be able to be prosecuted?
And where's your evidence of the courts' electoral interference: I've listed the cases, which one do you think was based on falsehoods?
It's really simple this, either you believe in the law and that no one is above it, or you don't.
Whether it helped Trump get elected or didn't is academic, but let's not pretend that there weren't cases to answer. The only people saying it was an unfounded witch hunt are his credulous supporters who thought anything he did was ok as long as he punished immigrants and brought prices down. Only half right there too.
Maybe he shouldn’t have committed the crimes then.
When would have been an appropriate time to commence proceedings on him inciting riots to prevent the transfer of power and on his overt attempts to interfere in the election itself?You’ve gone off on a tangent on me. My only point was that legal action that took place strengthened Trump’s re-election, that is all. The polling among the US electorate was that they felt that there was a political motive in the timing of the court cases, whether or not it is true or not is academic. That was their perception of events and voted at the ballot box.
Given that Trump won the popular vote (first Republican to do so since 2004), as well as improving vote share with all social classes and ethnicities, the scale of the victory was astonishing.
Due process exists here. Everyone has a right to appeal and a lot of cases have been dropped so if the passage of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applies…
Anyway, the original question of how he was ‘martyred’ has been answered sufficiently in my view.
It's not like the lawyers haven't been working on these cases since, and in some cases before, Trump left office first time around.You’ve gone off on a tangent on me. My only point was that legal action that took place strengthened Trump’s re-election, that is all. The polling among the US electorate was that they felt that there was a political motive in the timing of the court cases, whether or not it is true or not is academic. That was their perception of events and voted at the ballot box.
Given that Trump won the popular vote (first Republican to do so since 2004), as well as improving vote share with all social classes and ethnicities, the scale of the victory was astonishing.
Due process exists here. Everyone has a right to appeal and a lot of cases have been dropped so if the passage of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applies…
Anyway, the original question of how he was ‘martyred’ has been answered sufficiently in my view.
When would have been an appropriate time to commence proceedings on him inciting riots to prevent the transfer of power and on his overt attempts to interfere in the election itself?
It’s a disgrace that he was even allowed to run.
It's not like the lawyers haven't been working on these cases since, and in some cases before, Trump left office first time around.
But Trump's lawyers have blocked, obfuscated, counter sued and basically done everything possible to drag these proceedings out as long as possible to get him through to the next election.
Of course the lawyers were going to file before the election wherever possible because they knew that if Trump were to get back in he would basically use that are a reason he couldn't be prosecuted as we've seen.
On a more regular basis, if you charge (and even convict) someone looking for public office with a crime then normal people would most definitely think twice about doing so and that person would receive fewer votes. It's also why it's a popular tactic of fascists with political rivals. But Trump supporters, and the more extreme factions of the Republicans, aren't normal. Charge with a crime and they'll support him even more because it's a 'witch hunt'.
But what if Trump hadn't been charged? He'd have used that as ammunition as well saying how it shows he's innocent and the libs going after him unfairly and it's a 'witch hunt'. Regardless of what happens he uses the outcome as propaganda. So you saying that the legal action strengthened his re-election doesn't stand up. He would have got the nomination and beaten Harris regardless of legal action or not.
Never made the argument about him not standing.Take the worst case (or best, depending on political orientation) that he is jailed for ‘x, y and z’ charges, there was nothing preventing him standing anyway.
There was a socialist presidential candidate in 1920 who stood for election from his jail cell. Was this an outrage? If you’re consistent, your answer should be yes.
Personally, I don’t think that was an outrage and therefore, the historical precedent would have applied to Trump and he could’ve stood anyway.
He committed treason against the state by trying to prevent the transfer of power. If you think that shouldn’t be a disqualification then crack on.Not on the middle election cycle is a good place to start. The US citizens have made their decision and voted pretty resoundingly so not sure what use this debate is. Even if he is guilty of criminal charges, he can exercise his presidential pardon and the electorate knew this to make an informed decision.
Therefore, considering he won the election, it stands to reason that it would have been a greater miscarriage of democracy to bar him from standing. It would also have been unconstitutional mind you.
If you’re interested in historical precedence… Do you think it was a disgrace for socialist Eugene Debs to have stood for election in 1920? He won just shy of 1 million votes from jail, convicted for sedition. Or is that somehow different?
So even if Trump had been jail, he could still have stood and won an election.
He committed treason against the state by trying to prevent the transfer of power. If you think that shouldn’t be a disqualification then crack on.
Also, he won less than half the vote and finished around 1.5% higher than Harris. It’s not the FDR, LBJ or Reagan style landslide being suggested.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?