General News

[Md9]

22 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

First the trophy drop, now the pope drop. JD leaving them all in the dust, Trumps gotta sideline Vance stat.

 

Not catholic, but a human so R.I.P. to him and condolences to those who he represents.

Hopefully he takes his bad luck and trump drops as well maybe even musk if we are lucky 

[Jattdogg]

21 hours ago, Md9 said:

Happy Easter to everyone would have been fine 

How can any man who loves the Bible like he does,  speak in such a manner about a day like easter. I am not a follower of the religion and have a immense respect for those who celebrate the sacrifice and return. What a sick man Trump is. He has no shame.  Disgraceful.

[urban.spaceman]

14 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

How can any man who loves the Bible like he does,  speak in such a manner about a day like easter. I am not a follower of the religion and have a immense respect for those who celebrate the sacrifice and return. What a sick man Trump is. He has no shame.  Disgraceful.

Hate to break it to you but some of the most pious people can be the most actively vile. One or two posters have proven that on here pretty clearly a few times. 

 

Not that I believe that Trump is in any way religious. He IS his own God and has masterfully exploited the Christian Taliban in the states into giving him the power he wields. 

 

When he gets up this morning his first comments about the Pope will almost certainly be about himself and taking a shot a Biden. 

[Sampson]

16 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

How can any man who loves the Bible like he does,  speak in such a manner about a day like easter. I am not a follower of the religion and have an immense respect for those who celebrate the sacrifice and return. What a sick man Trump is. He has no shame.  Disgraceful.

 I don’t think he loves the bible at all. I doubt he even thinks about religion, it’s so engrained in American culture people are just brought up to be told their Christian and they barely give it a second thought 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 I don’t think he loves the bible at all. I doubt he even thinks about religion, it’s so engrained in American culture people are just brought up to be told their Christian and they barely give it a second thought 

Wasn’t he asked what his favourite verse of the bible was and he answered ‘all of it ‘ !

[Sampson]

Just now, st albans fox said:

Wasn’t he asked what his favourite verse of the bible was and he answered ‘all of it ‘ !

Sounds about right. If he is Christian I’d guarantee its just because he was told he was as a kid. I doubt he gives any second thought about the bible or to the actual substance and morality behind Christianity.

[Jattdogg]

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 I don’t think he loves the bible at all. I doubt he even thinks about religion, it’s so engrained in American culture people are just brought up to be told their Christian and they barely give it a second thought 

I know he does not really like the Bible lseeing as he can't say what his favourite part is. What a major bell.

 

It just irks me he acts like he is a god, better than everyone, knows more than everyone and has the audacity to act like he is religious or gives two crops.

 

Even as little of a man he is, i wish the tangerine tyrant does better in life.

[Lionator]

50 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 I don’t think he loves the bible at all. I doubt he even thinks about religion, it’s so engrained in American culture people are just brought up to be told their Christian and they barely give it a second thought 

Yup, it’s literally just meat on the bone for red neck republicans. Remember the Top Gear episode where they painted anti-God slogans on their cars and nearly got shot in Alabama, that’s who he’s pandering to. 

[Md9]

Look forward to being there 

[bovril]

32 minutes ago, Md9 said:

Look forward to being there 

Presbyterians...

Edited 21 April by bovril

[FoyleFox]

32 minutes ago, Md9 said:

Look forward to being there 

WTAF! 'We look forward to being there'.....seriously?!

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, FoyleFox said:

WTAF! 'We look forward to being there'.....seriously?!

Scoping out ideas for the level of pomp and ceremony for the next time Melania breaks a nail. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/trump-birthrate-proposals.html

 

The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values.

One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children.

Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery.

A third calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles — in part so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive.

 

.... the fresh Handmaid's Tale hell is this?

[Innovindil]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/trump-birthrate-proposals.html

 

The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values.

One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children.

Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery.

A third calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles — in part so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive.

 

.... the fresh Handmaid's Tale hell is this?

Sounds similar to what South Korea are doing to battle falling birthrates. Wonder if it will work any better in America. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Innovindil said:

Sounds similar to what South Korea are doing to battle falling birthrates. Wonder if it will work any better in America. 

I doubt it, because you either require a totally liberated environment where women feel absolutely comfortable with choosing career or kids or balancing both with no big consequence, or you need a totally Afghanistan-style repressive environment where women have to do their "duty".

 

The US (and Korea) is in between the two and so offers neither.

 

(Though if Trump and those backing him get their way, the latter may become more real than most people would like.)

[Sampson]

Plenty of countries have tried these things. Sweden has tried giving generous benefits to parents. Poland increases benefits per child, sort of the reverse to what UK does - so you get more benefits for your 3rd child than you do for your 1st child. They help maybe a little, but nowhere near enough and still no western country has got close to getting birth rates back up to replacement level of 2.1 children per woman again.

 

As leicsmac says I think the only way can really solve it is by becoming an African or Middle East style country with higher death rates and where people depend on children as the breadwinners. Even most of South America and India have got to the point that it has followed North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania with birthrates dropping below 2.1 children per women now. The world population is basically only propped up by Africa, the Middle East and some of the poorer countries of Asia (I believe the statistic is that within 25 years over 50% of babies born in the world will be in Sub-Sahara Africa) Having children just idoesn't seem to be very compatible with western modern life.

 

List of countries by total fertility rate - Wikipedia

 

Edited 22 April by Sampson

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/trump-birthrate-proposals.html

 

The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values.

One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children.

Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery.

A third calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles — in part so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive.

 

.... the fresh Handmaid's Tale hell is this?

They could try paying people a proper wage in a proper job with rights and holiday and maternity pay so they can imagine a future with children where they can afford to eat.  It continues to amaze me where the US is very the rest of the Western world in the basics.

[blabyboy]

Do we really want more children? Why not let the natural ebb and flow work it's way through?

It would help with resources consumption and attribution over time.

[Sampson]

20 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

Do we really want more children? Why not let the natural ebb and flow work it's way through?

It would help with resources consumption and attribution over time.

The issue isn’t the population numbers per se, it’s the population distribution - I.e. that it’s going to be a population of mostly older people who require a lot more help from the state in terms of pension, healthcare costs, disability benefits etc. mixed with much less workers to generate income for the state. 

 

South Korea is already past the point where it can’t reverse the fact it will be a country of majority over 65s in the future. Many of whom end up it cramped old people’s homes which are already well over capacity.

 

Then there’s the issues of democracy. How can you change these things when the majority of voters are all over 65 and crammed in retirement home. They have a right to vote for their own interests in terms of pension, state funded healthcare etc. But you can’t realistically provide these things without large scale immigration from Africa and the Middle East, which is where the majority of young people will come from (which itself is becoming politically impossible because immigration has become so politically weaponsised) or making people work 60+ hour weeks. 
 

“The natural ebb and flow” also usually means brutal world wars, pandemics or inhumane governments trying to change a populations distribution through force I.e. forced deportation or worse of certain demographics. But lots of suffering regardless.

Edited 22 April by Sampson

[leicsmac]

Population/demographic pressure is an issue that's coming up more and more often both here and out in the world.

 

It's such a bloody difficult problem because there don't appear to be any good options - you accept that there's going to be a period of time where agree demographics are badly lopsided while populations stabilise, with all the social problems that entails, or you try to boost the birth rate/population to compensate in a world where inequality is rampant and finite resources may already be diminishing past the point of no return, with all the dire consequences that entails.

 

If there's a third option that doesn't result in a lot of problems down the line, I wouldn't mind knowing what it is.

[leicsmac]

Starmer removing his ambiguity on trans matters will lose him more votes than it gains, seeing as people who are full-bore for the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't vote for him in any kind of number anyway.

 

It's a mistake.

[Zear0]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Starmer removing his ambiguity on trans matters will lose him more votes than it gains, seeing as people who are full-bore for the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't vote for him in any kind of number anyway.

 

It's a mistake.

Not sure it is tbh. Was a hill the Democrats decided to die on in the last election to their cost and he's trying to avoid a similar situation. Got to remember outside the corners of the internet, this really isn't an issue for most people and, rightly or wrongly, lots of people will agree with this decision and I think it will help him with votes and blunt the crass attacks Kemi would have used. 

[Spudulike]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Starmer removing his ambiguity on trans matters will lose him more votes than it gains, seeing as people who are full-bore for the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't vote for him in any kind of number anyway.

 

It's a mistake.

Mistake or not, he had no choice but to clarify his and the Labour Parties position otherwise the questioning would've been never ending. He misinterpreted the law as did many others and now looks like a fool.

 

But you are right, this won't encourage me to vote Labour. I'm still in the spoiled paper category. I dislike them all in equal measure.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure it is tbh. Was a hill the Democrats decided to die on in the last election to their cost and he's trying to avoid a similar situation. Got to remember outside the corners of the internet, this really isn't an issue for most people and, rightly or wrongly, lots of people will agree with this decision and I think it will help him with votes and blunt the crass attacks Kemi would have used. 

I think being ambiguous on it, rather than picking it as a hill to die on as the Dems did, would have been the smartest play.

 

But you could well be right and I guess only time is going to tell.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Mistake or not, he had no choice but to clarify his and the Labour Parties position otherwise the questioning would've been never ending. He misinterpreted the law as did many others and now looks like a fool.

 

But you are right, this won't encourage me to vote Labour. I'm still in the spoiled paper category. I dislike them all in equal measure.

I think he could have simply batted off the questioning as a lot of it was bait from people who would never vote for him anyway, as per above. Also, as you say, it's a bit foolish to choose a position that is polar different to the one you had a few years ago on this matter rather than simply keeping his own counsel about it.

 

But again as per above, I guess time will tell.

 

 

[Spudulike]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think being ambiguous on it, rather than picking it as a hill to die on as the Dems did, would have been the smartest play.

 

But you could well be right and I guess only time is going to tell.

 

 

I think he could have simply batted off the questioning as a lot of it was bait from people who would never vote for him anyway, as per above. Also, as you say, it's a bit foolish to choose a position that is polar different to the one you had a few years ago on this matter rather than simply keeping his own counsel about it.

 

But again as per above, I guess time will tell.

 

 

Seems that he decided that it wouldn't be possible to just bat this one away. It will crop up again and again and even those not previously knowing or caring about the Equalities Act 2010 will start to hold an opinion. The law has been clarified and he would be in a seriously damaging position if he didn't nip it in the bud quickly. He at least now knows what a woman is. Shame that it took so long but it doesn't need to he asked again. The Government's position is now aligned with the law.