United States Corrupt Twattery

[Wij]

She wants to be on the Supreme Court gravy train

Of course she does.

Anyway, it will head to the Supreme Court next after the 11th circuit upholds the appeal. Thomas has already indicated he agrees with the idea that special councils aren’t a thing even though they’ve been used for over a century, including in the hunter biden case. I’m not sure even this Supreme Court would go with something this crazy but they probably don’t need to. They can delay until after the election when Trump can pardon himself. And if he doesn’t win they still have the option to go with the idea that Trump may have declassified them while still in office. Even though that’s a ludicrous proposition, because of their recent ruling on immunity, the courts can’t even consider how unlikely that is. It can’t even be discussed in a court.

She’s done her job.

 

[Wij]

Putin’s pick for VP:


View: https://twitter.com/billbrowder/status/1812937595447615834?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[caLLous]

He's also the absolute embodiment of Project 2025, which Trump totally doesn't know anything about.

 

[BloodOmen]

Shame he missed. One way or another it would have lit the powder keg anyway, may as well of taken the cunt out for all he's worth. He'll milk it to the white house.

As for JD Vance, that cunt needs running over with a steamroller.

 

[Scouse]

Playing devil's advocate - JD Vance is there talking about the dismantling of the Administrative State. He's saying there's a constitutional crisis in that the beauracracy is no longer primarily serving the interests of the people - that in it's inherent desire for power (and all government agencies desire more power) it's overstepping it's mandate. So much so, that he thinks that it's undermining the principles of the constitutional republic.

Anyone who's interacted with a council in the UK could probably have sympathy with that view. Or the Home Office.

It's been said that Trump's primary objective is the dismantling of that Administrative State. He's agitating the deep state bollocks because to get power and mandate to do that, he has to get the buy in of a lot of Americans - he has to have them vote for it.

It's not an inherently terrible idea.

Of course, that's tied up with anti-leftist bollocks. But if you feel that the administrative state is overreaching and primarily leftist and that it effectively trumps a large swathe of the purpose of the republic, then it doesn't mean you're a bad actor. It's just that you think differently.

There's potential to meet in the middle here.

 

[caLLous]

He's not talking about dismantling the administrative state for the good of the country, he wants to keep it but fill all of the positions with their own people.

 

[Wij]

You give the clown credit he doesn’t deserve. Replacing civil servants who know how to do their job with loyalist zealots won’t help the interests of the majority of Americans. It isn’t designed to. Explicitly invoking the will or interests of the people as aligned with your own values rather than as expressed at the ballot box or just by asking them is literally what the fascists did.

Smashing things is only what a minority of angry fucks want. There’s no evidence that the majority of Americans want that. They want things to work better sure. Smashing everything to shit doesn’t achieve that.

Anyway. You’re just playing devils advocate so I’m sure you’re aware that Vance’s arguments aren’t given in good faith but instead to further his agendas around abortion, social security cuts, rule of law etc which would be unpopular if just stated as policy aims.

It’s this guy ffs:


View: https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1813084295780790773?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Embattle]

Shocker...dickhead presidential candidate picks dickhead VP.

 

[Tom]

"I totally want to be VP, the last guy was treated so nicely".

 

[Scouse]

You give the clown credit he doesn’t deserve. Replacing civil servants who know how to do their job with loyalist zealots won’t help the interests of the majority of Americans. It isn’t designed to. Explicitly invoking the will or interests of the people as aligned with your own values rather than as expressed at the ballot box or just by asking them is literally what the fascists did.

Smashing things is only what a minority of angry fucks want. There’s no evidence that the majority of Americans want that. They want things to work better sure. Smashing everything to shit doesn’t achieve that.

Anyway. You’re just playing devils advocate so I’m sure you’re aware that Vance’s arguments aren’t given in good faith but instead to further his agendas around abortion, social security cuts, rule of law etc which would be unpopular if just stated as policy aims.

It’s this guy ffs:


View: https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1813084295780790773?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

Well, of course that was glib.

However, there's about 4 million muslims in the UK - approx 7% of the population, more than doubling in the last 20 years. There are estimates range from between 30 and 80 sharia councils operating in the UK - which rule on stuff like marriage, divorce, business and finance. And although they have no legal standing the rulings are often obeyed and disproportionately affect women negatively, when compared to actual UK law.

So, whilst he got the laugh he was going for - he was still making a point. One that seems to be ignored by a lot of the population. But if we keep ignoring this, then this cunt is going to be looking like this next time round:

Spoiler

On his point about Labour. They've just got in power, and there's a very good chance that we'll have this yolk foisted around our necks. Because what Britain needs is Islam sponsoring the same shit that Judaism has sponsored - a definition of Islamophobia that makes it very difficult to denigrate a religion, to mock a religion and it's ideas (which is the most powerful way of undermining it - as we should all be very aware), without risking serious criminal charges. The APPG has explicitly called for limits to free speech.

Labour still adopted their IHRC-style bullshit. (As did all the others apart from the Tories - something that's in the Tories favour (although the Tories unequivocally adopted the IHRC bullshit, whilst Labour under Corbyn was equivocating over it's restriction on ability to criticise Israel).


So yeah. He got a laugh. He was semi serious and made a point. Why do we allow this in the UK? And why has Labour signed up to a definition of Islamophobia, written by Islamists, that restricts debate within their own party. Good policy cannot ever be the result of what is effectively backdoor blasphemy rules.

 

[Wij]

Well, of course that was glib.

However, there's about 4 million muslims in the UK - approx 7% of the population, more than doubling in the last 20 years. There are estimates range from between 30 and 80 sharia councils operating in the UK - which rule on stuff like marriage, divorce, business and finance. And although they have no legal standing the rulings are often obeyed and disproportionately affect women negatively, when compared to actual UK law.

So, whilst he got the laugh he was going for - he was still making a point. One that seems to be ignored by a lot of the population. But if we keep ignoring this, then this cunt is going to be looking like this next time round:

Spoiler

On his point about Labour. They've just got in power, and there's a very good chance that we'll have this yolk foisted around our necks. Because what Britain needs is Islam sponsoring the same shit that Judaism has sponsored - a definition of Islamophobia that makes it very difficult to denigrate a religion, to mock a religion and it's ideas (which is the most powerful way of undermining it - as we should all be very aware), without risking serious criminal charges. The APPG has explicitly called for limits to free speech.

Labour still adopted their IHRC-style bullshit. (As did all the others apart from the Tories - something that's in the Tories favour (although the Tories unequivocally adopted the IHRC bullshit, whilst Labour under Corbyn was equivocating over it's restriction on ability to criticise Israel).


So yeah. He got a laugh. He was semi serious and made a point. Why do we allow this in the UK? And why has Labour signed up to a definition of Islamophobia, written by Islamists, that restricts debate within their own party. Good policy cannot ever be the result of what is effectively backdoor blasphemy rules.

Oh come on. Stop trying to be so edgy.

The implication was that now Labour is in charge, Islamists have some influence over our nuclear arms. Sharia councils have been going on for the last 13 years. Changing government to Labour, which is what he mentioned, hasn't just started that. That wasn't the implication.

If it was anything to do with your point then the change of government wouldn't be worth mentioning. He was making the usual dickhead point that lefties are naturally Islamists for some inexplicable reason and the audience was agreeing with that.

The only time I see lefties (much more left than Labour) encouraging Islamism is when you get Queers for Palestine or such on the streets encouraging the Intifada.

 

[Wij]

Anyway, interesting:


View: https://twitter.com/steamboatusa/status/1812969269266948108?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Scouse]

Oh come on. Stop trying to be so edgy.

That's the second time you've accused me of that! (You called me an Edgelord in another post). I don't get it.

I'm not being edgy. I think what I've written, regardless of this guy's motivations, is perfectly reasonable.

And for your information, Sharia courts have been going on for as long as we've had devout muslims in adequate numbers in the UK - a lot longer than 13 years. I think it's a fair point to say that as the muslim population is growing so rapidly (doubling in 20 years) then it's about time we did something about that - rather than adopt blasphemy laws by the backdoor. It's also fair to say that Labour has been a great enabler of that and with the adoption of that definition they've undermined crucial freedom of speech in their own party, and therefore in government.

 

[Wij]

That's the second time you've accused me of that! (You called me an Edgelord in another post). I don't get it.

I'm not being edgy. I think what I've written, regardless of this guy's motivations, is perfectly reasonable.

And for your information, Sharia courts have been going on for as long as we've had devout muslims in adequate numbers in the UK - a lot longer than 13 years. I think it's a fair point to say that as the muslim population is growing so rapidly (doubling in 20 years) then it's about time we did something about that - rather than adopt blasphemy laws by the backdoor. It's also fair to say that Labour has been a great enabler of that and with the adoption of that definition they've undermined crucial freedom of speech in their own party, and therefore in government.

Which is missing the point. I mentioned 13 years because that's how long we've had a Tory government.

His point was about Labour coming into power. Your point is nothing to do with his.

 

[Scouse]

I've never posted the spacktator before (it's normally @Bodhi's thang IIRC) but:

Free speech will be in peril under Labour

Threats to freedom of speech in Britain today typically stem from a combination of two ways of thinking. First, the kindly authoritarian view that it should be the job of the state to protect its citizens from ‘harmful’ speech – and to censor and punish those who cause offence. And second, woke...

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Which is missing the point. I mentioned 13 years because that's how long we've had a Tory government.

His point was about Labour coming into power. Your point is nothing to do with his.

Disagree - read again. I made the point about Labour adopting the APPG definitions - and making it party policy. They were agitating in opposition for what amounts to an effective blasphemy law (they already run it in their party). The Tories rejected it.

Now, don't get me wrong, the Tories rejected it because they wanted to play to racists. But Labour adopted it because they're courting the muslim vote. BOTH sides are being cunts here.

But a Labour government getting in, with previous form in government around hate speech laws, with form in opposition for adopting restrictive covenants which end avenues of reasonable discussion, promising to come to power to legislate in that manner and now being in power.

That's 100% relevant. And perfect material for an American asshat to make a joke at Blighty's expense. He's not seriously equating the UK to a muslim nuclear-armed country (and any talk of such is disingenuous) - but he IS having a legitimate pop at a Labour party and it's idiotic policy.

 

[Wij]

Disagree - read again. I made the point about Labour adopting the APPG definitions - and making it party policy. They were agitating in opposition for what amounts to an effective blasphemy law (they already run it in their party). The Tories rejected it.

Now, don't get me wrong, the Tories rejected it because they wanted to play to racists. But Labour adopted it because they're courting the muslim vote. BOTH sides are being cunts here.

But a Labour government getting in, with previous form in government around hate speech laws, with form in opposition for adopting restrictive covenants which end avenues of reasonable discussion, promising to come to power to legislate in that manner and now being in power.

That's 100% relevant. And perfect material for an American asshat to make a joke at Blighty's expense. He's not seriously equating the UK to a muslim nuclear-armed country (and any talk of such is disingenuous) - but he IS having a legitimate pop at a Labour party and it's idiotic policy.

You are reading your thoughts into what he said with no justification whatsoever. He's made no reference to de-facto blasphemy laws (which he'd love by the way).

You just would hate to agree with the majority opinion that he said a dumb thing so you're straining to do some explaining about why we can't say it's a dumb thing.

Keir Starmer is not an Islamist. He controls the nuclear arsenal. He's just making the usual left=islam joke.

 

[Gwadien]

Disagree - read again. I made the point about Labour adopting the APPG definitions - and making it party policy. They were agitating in opposition for what amounts to an effective blasphemy law (they already run it in their party). The Tories rejected it.

Now, don't get me wrong, the Tories rejected it because they wanted to play to racists. But Labour adopted it because they're courting the muslim vote. BOTH sides are being cunts here.

But a Labour government getting in, with previous form in government around hate speech laws, with form in opposition for adopting restrictive covenants which end avenues of reasonable discussion, promising to come to power to legislate in that manner and now being in power.

That's 100% relevant. And perfect material for an American asshat to make a joke at Blighty's expense. He's not seriously equating the UK to a muslim nuclear-armed country (and any talk of such is disingenuous) - but he IS having a legitimate pop at a Labour party and it's idiotic policy.

Your thinking is how we're in this mess already -'He's just making jokes' sure to you and him he is, but to his base it's the alternate fact.

He's the next vice president of America saying things that are not true.

 

[Embattle]

If only you could crowbar Orban out of the EU/NATO:

Trump has ‘detailed and well-founded’ plans to end Ukraine war, says Orbán

‘Likely outcome’ of Trump victory means EU should reopen diplomatic talks with Moscow, says Hungarian PM

www.theguardian.com

 

[Wij]

Putin’s pick for VP:


View: https://twitter.com/billbrowder/status/1812937595447615834?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

Definitely Putin’s pick. Sacks is the most vile Putinist imaginable:


View: https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1813198546763493790?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Wij]

Also, South Africans in charge for some reason.

 

[Scouse]

He's the next vice president of America saying things that are not true.

Biden took actions that were antithetical to his espoused environmental credentials. Abortion is illegal in very happy Malta.

They're not the new great satan. On an objective scale (which I posted) they're simply not that far apart in policy terms.

The rabid (and it is rabid) polarisation is performative politics.

Yes, objectively, they're worse. I agree. But not materially so.

 

[Scouse]

He's just making the usual left=islam joke.

I don't disagree. But Labour = soft on dangerous Islam, to the detriment of the majority.

No, we're not a muslim country and Islamists aren't going to nuke the planet (nobody is seriously saying that they are). But I did state facts above.

 

[Wij]

I don't disagree. But Labour = soft on dangerous Islam, to the detriment of the majority.

No, we're not a muslim country and Islamists aren't going to nuke the planet (nobody is seriously saying that they are). But I did state facts above.

Even if they are facts they aren't what he was saying. That was my point, so your analysis of what he said wasn't valid.

 

[Scouse]

Even if they are facts they aren't what he was saying. That was my point, so your analysis of what he said wasn't valid.

He was joking. He wasn't seriously saying that Islamists had any sort of control over our nuclear arms.

The implication was that now Labour is in charge, Islamists have some influence over our nuclear arms.

This is a load of shit. I don't think you really believe he was really saying that.

 

[Scouse]

Trump security boosted weeks ago over Iran plot to kill him

There is no known link between the plot and Saturday's attack, but the disclosure raises questions over how a gunman got so close.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Wij]

He was joking. He wasn't seriously saying that Islamists had any sort of control over our nuclear arms.



This is a load of shit. I don't think you really believe he was really saying that.

He wasn't talking about APPG for fuck's sake.

 

[Scouse]

So?


Edit: Not being glib. But it doesn't detract one bit from my post above.

 

[Scouse]

I notice the Grauniad is predictably making a mountain out of this particular molehill:

Labour rejects JD Vance ‘first Islamist country with nuclear weapons’ remarks

Deputy PM Angela Rayner says she does not recognise Donald Trump running mate’s ‘characterisation’ of Britain

www.theguardian.com

 

[Overdriven]

I notice the Grauniad is predictably making a mountain out of this particular molehill:

Labour rejects JD Vance ‘first Islamist country with nuclear weapons’ remarks

Deputy PM Angela Rayner says she does not recognise Donald Trump running mate’s ‘characterisation’ of Britain

www.theguardian.com

Pakistan isn't a real country anyway.

/s