General News

[Lionator]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No doubt he'll do his best.

 

Yep.

 

Enough of the population in enough places wanted Project 2025 and aggressive acts towards friendly nations, so that's what folks are getting. Trump was certainly clear enough on what he intended.

 

Which rather gives you an insight info the mindset of the aforementioned voter.

 

Well, I might suggest that the UK starts by proving, conclusively, that it was an act of sabotage before responding further.

Either way it’s completely dire. Either a) we’re at war or b) our critical infrastructure has one power supply source, which is insane. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Either way it’s completely dire. Either a) we’re at war or b) our critical infrastructure has one power supply source, which is insane. 

I think - and fear - that the advanced mechanics of civilisation are so complex that they run on more "Single Points of Failure" than folks realise. It's likewise too costly and complex to be otherwise.

[blabyboy]

22 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Either way it’s completely dire. Either a) we’re at war or b) our critical infrastructure has one power supply source, which is insane. 

The backup failed as well.

The first could be sabotage, the second could just be down to the typical attitude that we don't look after our backup resources - it's always a quick way to save money and often one of the first to be cut when savings need to be made.

[blabyboy]

4 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

It might be my memory just either bad or selective, but did other presidents sign so many executive orders? Or is it just that Fart does it so publicly for "oooo look at me, look whether I'm doing" attention? Seems a bit childish to me. 

He is governing via EO's correct. What I do not understand is that in the main, he has the numbers to push through changes onto the Statute book .i.e. proper laws that a following President would then have to try and undo through Congress.

 

At present, all the EOs he has created can be undone on day one by the next incoming President.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, blabyboy said:

He is governing via EO's correct. What I do not understand is that in the main, he has the numbers to push through changes onto the Statute book .i.e. proper laws that a following President would then have to try and undo through Congress.

 

At present, all the EOs he has created can be undone on day one by the next incoming President.

Does he have enough of a majority on both Houses of Congress to make it easy for himself? I don't remember off the top of my head.

 

IIRC you need 60+ in the Senate to be filibuster-proof.

[blabyboy]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Does he have enough of a majority on both Houses of Congress to make it easy for himself? I don't remember off the top of my head.

 

IIRC you need 60+ in the Senate to be filibuster-proof.

You're right for what he'd need for abolishing the Dept if Ed. It depends upon what he's looking to change. However, given the state of the Dems at present, gaining 7 may not be as difficult as it used to be. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

You're right for what he'd need for abolishing the Dept if Ed. It depends upon what he's looking to change. However, given the state of the Dems at present, gaining 7 may not be as difficult as it used to be. 

I guess we'll see at the end of next year.

 

In the meantime though, he seems perfectly happy to be his idea of an unaccountable king governing by proclamation.

[Tommy G]

This Heathrow situation is very fishy. 

[Dunge]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

This Heathrow situation is very fishy. 

I’m assuming it was a Russian agent with a drone until specified otherwise.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I’m assuming it was a Russian agent with a drone until specified otherwise.

It wouldn’t be a drone. More likely internal sabotage by someone paid off by the SVR. Although police are saying no indication of foul play so far. But given that this would be a war starting move, I’m guessing they’ll cover it up anyway.

[Md9]

Feels low trump has been in charge for years already and him and musk are just maoning little sh*** that’s don’t like anyone that try and correct anything they say and do. Trump must be due a heart attack soon or something 

[The Guvnor]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

We have to respond, the question is how

Let’s get keir to send them a stern letter!

[Tommy G]

Ed Miliband’s interviews today show why he should be nowhere near frontline politics. What an absolute ditherer 

[Dr The Singh]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Ed Miliband’s interviews today show why he should be nowhere near frontline politics. What an absolute ditherer 

What did he say G

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, Tommy G said:

This Heathrow situation is very fishy. 

 

9 hours ago, Dunge said:

I’m assuming it was a Russian agent with a drone until specified otherwise.

 

7 hours ago, Lionator said:

It wouldn’t be a drone. More likely internal sabotage by someone paid off by the SVR. Although police are saying no indication of foul play so far. But given that this would be a war starting move, I’m guessing they’ll cover it up anyway.

It’s not suspicious 

[blabyboy]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

 

 

It’s not suspicious 

If it were suspicious 

 

a) we wouldn't find out about it for years due to sensitivity of the event and World affairs at present i.e. let's not go to war over a fire and some delayed flights

 

b) it's another example of how we can run away with one particular notion without any real evidence, which reinforces point A above. 

 

c) I wonder what the odds are on us stumbling accidentally into the next War with an event like this?

[st albans fox]

Just now, blabyboy said:

If it were suspicious 

 

a) we wouldn't find out about it for years due to sensitivity of the event and World affairs at present i.e. let's not go to war over a fire and some delayed flights

 

b) it's another example of how we can run away with one particular notion without any real evidence, which reinforces point A above. 

 

c) I wonder what the odds are on us stumbling accidentally into the next War with an event like this?

The tinfoil hat brigade won’t believe it’s not suspicious anyway 

 

the rest of us can manage to accept that shit happens and our readiness for things to go wrong may not be what we’d expect it to be 

[blabyboy]

Never attribute to malace, that which is borne of incompetence 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

Never attribute to malace, that which is borne of incompetence 

Very much so, however any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, blabyboy said:

Never attribute to malace, that which is borne of incompetence 

I was a bit hasty but ultimately when you have the sky news defence editor within an hour calling it sabotage followed by the Estonian foreign minister then you know things are getting dicey.

[Blarmy]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I was a bit hasty but ultimately when you have the sky news defence editor within an hour calling it sabotage followed by the Estonian foreign minister then you know things are getting dicey.

A British citizen was killed by Russian state sanctioned violence at the World Cup. This is nothing new. 

[bovril]

2 hours ago, blabyboy said:

Never attribute to malace, that which is borne of incompetence 

Hanlon's razor. Getting a lot harder these days...

[SecretPro]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The tinfoil hat brigade won’t believe it’s not suspicious anyway 

 

the rest of us can manage to accept that shit happens and our readiness for things to go wrong may not be what we’d expect it to be 

The boat thing the other week was definitely deliberate. 

[Mike Oxlong]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Very much so, however any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

In effect perhaps but in intent no 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

In effect perhaps but in intent no 

Quite right, such is why (to use an extreme example) the law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter based on intent.

 

However, I do think that effect matters more in a lot of instances, and also beware those using a shield of incompetence to disguise their malice (there's a lot of that going round right now).