leicsmac

Never apologise, never explain. Such people don't even understand the concept of humility. Which is why it's up to other people who do to teach it to them. Sometimes the lesson has to be very blunt.

I'm going to be honest, the current discussion sounds a bit like folks on Polymarket chatting about making money off a bet regarding when the next smart bomb is going to go off. I get that it's not something anyone here has any control over, but considering what is actually happening to change the market prices right now, its interesting to see how many people appear comfortable with making a buck from it. Edit: though I guess what's happening now isn't exactly different to what's happened a fair few times during recent history, is it.

Also, it's somewhat going unnoticed that the US is engaging in a de facto act of war with Cuba by means of the current blockade there.

... is anyone particularly surprised? If so, they shouldn't be.

Hegseth is such an unconscionable and egotistical piece of excrement. Using the line Vance used to Zelenskyy to refer to the whole world now.

I was thinking more his energy generation policy position that will, rather soon, create a refugee crisis that will make the present one look like a pleasant day at the seaside, but yes, this is a fair point too.

And that was because he, and most of the military guys he consulted with, assessed that such a conflict could not be won and it would be drawn out into an expensive and horrific cycle of death and destruction that would end up being pointless in terms of objective anyway. ... guess how it turned out?

And that's not even the most damaging policy that they have.

Actually, you're likely right there. Worst case for him is that he has a Nixon style retirement arrangement when articles of impeachment look like they'll succeed against him. Which is a possibility if this whole sort business keeps going badly and the midterms show a big enough swing.

Yeah. Something he and Trump may have in common, there.

There's something in that. You wonder what it would take to see the man removed from power. And as such Starmer should push back on that, with the Trump association, as much as possible.

Well, I think that's a rather dangerous rabbit hole to descend, so I'm sticking to the safe ground of collective sociopathy being displayed there. And I don't think the Royal Navy, or any UK military assets, should be doing those sociopaths any favours whatsoever. Very much best to stay out of it entirely. It's their mess. You would think so, but seeing as one is (rightly) in the headlines for being a shitbag reasonably often, the other is going beneath notice somewhat.

Also, to pivot quickly back to the Middle East for a minute after the events of today, it should be important to remember that this isn't just Trump's act of folly. Netanyahu is in just as deep and with equal self interest .

It's not good enough for the public to be either unknowingly or knowingly misinformed about the public servants and what they're doing in terms of policy, either, as per more than one post on this very page of this thread. So there appears to be a lot of "not good enough" to go around.

Apologies, but the inference by omission was obvious. All of these things are relative and none exist in a vacuum. But again, for what it's worth I don't think much of Starmer, but like Jon above intimated I do think he's the best of an extraordinarily poor bunch of candidates at this point in time, until really compelling evidence is shown otherwise.

It also seems to be an issue with other places, but not all. Carney is a notable exception, though he has Trump being his usual shitbag self mostly to thank for winning his post.

Something that apparently wasn't an issue with his predecessors, then? Don't get me wrong, I get the legitimacy of the argument - I just think it's rather one sided. Which is fair enough, such are the times we live in.

No argument regarding the popularity matter, just goes to show how perception can surpass fact. Starmer is far from anywhere close to the best option, but thanks to Burnham getting railroaded it's also empirically true that there's no better option among those realistically in line for the job right now. Then once again I have to question a memory that appears rather selective here. In any case, as if PMQs is suddenly a key barometer of the success or failure of a PM anyway (since July 2024, apparently).

.... which does a magnificent job of distracting from the issue itself which should be the priority focus first, last, always. But then considering this whole sorry affair is itself a distraction from Epstein, using distraction in that way tallies.

Considering Liz Truss is a reasonably recent memory... Edit: considering the current ME business is the hot button issue, Starmer has every right to question Badenoch in turn about her own highly questionable stance towards it.

I am really glad that the UK continues to lean so much into wind and solar renewable energy infrastructure. The next election is so important if it is going to keep doing so, for the sake of all of us.

Right, and those protests and rallies (as opposed to the more violent direct action) would be justified, yes? I'm making this point because I'm pretty sure preventing terror attacks is not the only or even anywhere near the biggest reason to get involved with this piece of Trump-driven bloodthirsty foolhardiness.

From what I can tell, enlisted soldiers in the US do have training on legal and illegal orders and what the procedure is when you're given a directly illegal order to follow. Of course, that order tends to come from a direct superior officer and not the commander in chief, so I'm not sure whether that part is on the curriculum. (On topic, I remember a back and forth with a former user of this site where they said a soldier shouldn't refuse an order to launch a nuclear weapon from the sitting US President, even if the order was blatantly unnecessary and coming from a position of ego rather than defending the nation. Personally, I think that's taking following orders too far.)

Yep. Though I think there is, finally, enough pushback across all demographics regarding such AI slop that at the very least it will become much less influential because enough people simply will see it for the lie it is, and at most there will end up being limitations on AI content with platform regulation. The big tech bros and people like Trump who want to peddle such for their own ends (misinformation is one of the keys to his success after all) can push it as they like, there finally may actually be enough consumer or otherwise power against it.

If the "national interest" and "protecting Europe from attack" means accepting and aligning with the values of the US that Trump and his backers embody, then the "national interest" is hopelessly corrupt and Europe doesn't deserve any kind of protection. Thankfully, most European leaders appear to understand this right now.