President Elect's 'top team'

[danst96]

Don’t know how any of you find the time to get any woodwork done, I look in occasionally but soon leave again.
A most unpleasant experience watching you all argue for the sake of it.

Yeh this site is becoming a political argument space. Kind of sad. Need to try avoid these threads but keep getting sucked in which is my fault.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

You just don't get it do you? You're another of the obsessives. When I check my alerts it's three posts from you all having a go simply for daring to have a differing opinion to some of the left wing nonsense and drivel spouted on here by other obsessive ideologues which I'd argue says far more about you and others rather than just me.

As for my criticism of Starmer in this thread. Yes the thread is unsurprisingly anti-Trump but Trump is not my president and never will be, however Starmer unfortunately IS in charge of the UK which does affect ME personally so I have a right to draw comparisons and criticise him and his bunch of buffoons as he's already a proven liar and arguably incompetent but even then I don't obsess about him.

You obviously didn't take on board what I wrote. Any of it. I understand your POV and that is why it is your POV that is being criticised - and not you - I'm categorically not "having a go at you" - instead I'm establishing that your POV is often worthy of either fair and equitable criticism or sometimes even ridicule, because it often cannot be substantiated, more often than not flies in the face of observable reality and is often obviously based upon nothing other that your clearly biased feelies (and perhaps repetition of echo-chamber media).

If you feel I am having a go at you, then you are doubly wrong. Once wrong for your demonstrably untrue POV and once for your crying about me picking on "tony" - which is not what is happening - I'm not even picking on "tony's opinion" - observing that an opinion flies in the face of demonstrable reality is not picking on it...

So to answer your question (if it wasn't rhetorical?), I absolutely do get it that you don't like your opinion being taken apart with facts and reality. But if that's all it takes to upset tony, then perhaps avoiding posting any opinion which can be taken apart with facts and reality would be a sensible move? ( <- I've set a pretty big and obvious bear-trap for you in saying that - let's see if you fall in?)

Another word to the wise would be - if you have been prolifically, obsessively and aggressively uber-critical of a particular politician yourself (and you have - 4-page list of your insults and attacks here) it might be advisable to refrain from suggesting that people should refrain from criticising another politician. Particularly in a thread which was set up to discuss that politician. Once again, your complete lack of any self awareness (or humility in the face of fair observations) is simply staggering. I would suggest that a 4 page list of your posts attacking one person is indeed obsessive, in direct contradiction to your claim above! Anyway, just a thought. Take it or leave it, buddy!

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

the fact that the UK is the largest single market for German vehicle exports

Fact check. This is 100% untrue.

Do you really think it bothers me that the same obsessive left wingers have a go every time anyone including myself expresses a difference of opinion to theirs?

Yes. I do. And I'm sad for you.

Although what you appear to label as "opinion" is often not an "opinion" and can be directly refuted through simple counting. See fact check above.

I can't speak for the others but personally I couldn't give a monkeys as to the opinions expressed by those who denigrate me

Nobody is denigrating you. There is no name calling or personal insult. There is, however, an enormous body of factual evidence that directly refutes what you have written.

as it's mostly left wing nonsense and bluster

Factual and substantiated evidence can never be labelled as "bluster".

but it would be interesting to find out just how many these have actually spent most or their entire lives running businesses

False equivalence. "Running a business" does not necessarily imbue the individual with factual or even relevant information in discussions.

because I would argue that from most of what I read, the majority wouldn't last 6 months if SE and were very likely PAYE most probably in local government jobs or worked in industries with strong unions.

LOL. This is a logical fallacy. A Straw Man argument layered onto Ad Hominem. What you are trying to say here is that you actively desire to remove individuals from a discussion depending on what job they do. Nothing short of attempting to engineer an echo chamber that you believe would be more likely, in your view, to reflect your own views.

They're the only people who could afford to have those leftie views but I'm sure you and others will be along very soon to correct me.

Nobody can afford to fall into a society in which a person's view is either accepted or rejected based solely on the grounds of which job they do. Not even you!

As Friedrich Hayek said.. "if socialists understood economics then they wouldn't be socialists"! It was written around 80 years ago and still holds true today.

Hayek was also a proponent of government not intervening in markets when they fail and not intervening in the economy during crisis, instead preferring the notion that markets and economies should sort themselves out.

Shall we adopt that notion to the water companies and allow them to charge higher prices so that they can continue to extract high profit? Shall we also adopt that notion with the energy market and allow companies to continue to increase prices while also withdrawing ALL Winter Fuel Allowance?

As you can see, Cherry Picking is also another logical fallacy which can easily be discerned and therefore roundly criticised.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yeh this site is becoming a political argument space. Kind of sad. Need to try avoid these threads but keep getting sucked in which is my fault.

I actually enjoy reading them

 

[RobinBHM]

President elects team isnt lasting too well

Matt Gaetz drops bid to serve as Trump's attorney general over teen *** and drugs investigation

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-consideration-attorney-general/76480095007/

 

[Chris152]

Maybe appointing a sexual pervert to attorney general wasn't such a great move? I'm sure trump knows what he was thinking. After all, he's bigly smart.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

if you look at the previous election is was built on slogans not truths

look at the Conservative messaging, Jeremy Hunt cut NI before the election (without actually funding it) and told the electorate that the Conservative are the party of low taxes, despite the fact that since 2019 they had put in place tax rises of £80b (mostly through stealth tax of freezing tax allowance bands).

that was a cynical trap for Labour because they knew NI wasn't funded and wasn't affordable, so Labour either had to put back the NI to where it was and be accused of tax rises or keep it as it was and then have to tax something elsewhere instead to pay for it and then be accused of lying


Labour didnt really promise what they couldnt deliver, they mostly played the game of avoiding Tory traps and R/W media attacks........Labours path to victory was always very narrow, weve had 5 years of right wing populism, theres been no real political bandwidth to have any reasoned discourse



As you alluded to previously, to win power you have to treat politics as just sales slogans, truth and facts arent really relevant

If you take Labour, they won power but the reality is they are now the government in charge of an almighty mess, with collapsing public services and a right wing press screaming about how bad they are without any explanation of how they would pay for it.


And despite what people may claim on here there is zero equivalence between Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, none at all. -

I know you will defend Labour to the hilt - but bluntly they lied and fed the country a diet of unadulterated B / S in pursuit of electoral success.

We could debate issues endlessly and possibly never reach agreement - "freebies" (at the very least poor judgement), winter fuel allowance (ill-conceived), tax expectations (remember "read my lips"), effective immigration control (seemingly still non-existent), farmers and inheritance tax (no issue with taxing tax dodgers),etc etc.

Labour had years to plan their election victory, and 6 months to examine the books and question officials. They insisted they would replace chaos with economic discipline etc, yet failed to ask about pay rises embedded in strike ridden industries in OBR forecasts. Incompetent, economical with the truth or liars - take your pick.

They held out hope they would be far better than the previous incumbents - with some justification persuaded many to vote their way. Massively helped by Reform splitting residual Tory loyalties.

This is not a criticism of Labour - politicians without power are impotent - their pursuit of power at any cost or compromise is understandable - I am sure the Tories will do likewise in 2029!!

 

[sploo]

President elects team isnt lasting too well

Matt Gaetz drops bid to serve as Trump's attorney general over teen *** and drugs investigation

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-consideration-attorney-general/76480095007/

Apparently after his meetings with Republican senators. I.e. he's so toxic that it was clear that not enough of them would support his nomination so he's pulled out. Which is maybe what he should have done with the underage girls. Ahem. Allegedly.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Labour had years to plan their election victory, and 6 months to examine the books and question officials.

Which they clearly did do - but when even the officials didn't know - because they had been unlawfully kept in the dark - the answer is that there was surprises that no amount of "due diligence" would have uncovered. (I've posted the quotation previously by the head of OBR attending the Select Committee = "under the normal rules and under the Act, they should have done" [ie Tory govt did not inform OBR of all planned expenditure] )

They insisted they would replace chaos with economic discipline etc, yet failed to ask about pay rises embedded in strike ridden industries in OBR forecasts.

The pay rises were mostly NOT to do with strike action - for instance the Armed Forces got a 5% pay rise - and I don't know whether you are aware but Armed Forces are not legally allowed to strike...

Again, no amount of due diligence would have uncovered this, since the dishonest and corrupt Tories chose to hide that information. Most Pay Review Bodies had completed their work and had written their reports by the election - but the reports were deliberately hidden from parliament by the dishonest govt. The reports are for Govt eyes only until such times as the govt chooses to release them.
I guess the biggest mistake was to take the Tory govt at face value and trust that the money they had already allocated to fund pay rises was sufficient to cover the Pay Review Body's recommendations. (Which it ought to have been if we are to consider the outgoing govt as "fiscally responsible", and not down-right corrupt.)

Left with the choice to find the funding that was necessary to fund the Body's recommendations, or to chose to go against the recommendations - this was a dirty trap set by corrupt Tories - and much of the electorate, including you, it would appear, have swallowed the LIE that these were in some way "foreseeable" costs, when in fact they absolutely were not.

 

[Croolis]

Maybe appointing a sexual pervert to attorney general wasn't such a great move? I'm sure trump knows what he was thinking. After all, he's bigly smart.

As has been noted - Trump gets to show he rewards loyalty and can pin it on others for not confirming him, even if everyone guessed it wouldn't happen.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Which they clearly did do - but when even the officials didn't know - because they had been unlawfully kept in the dark - the answer is that there was surprises that no amount of "due diligence" would have uncovered. (I've posted the quotation previously by the head of OBR attending the Select Committee = "under the normal rules and under the Act, they should have done" [ie Tory govt did not inform OBR of all planned expenditure] )



The pay rises were mostly NOT to do with strike action - for instance the Armed Forces got a 5% pay rise - and I don't know whether you are aware but Armed Forces are not legally allowed to strike...

Again, no amount of due diligence would have uncovered this, since the dishonest and corrupt Tories chose to hide that information. Most Pay Review Bodies had completed their work and had written their reports by the election - but the reports were deliberately hidden from parliament by the dishonest govt. The reports are for Govt eyes only until such times as the govt chooses to release them.
I guess the biggest mistake was to take the Tory govt at face value and trust that the money they had already allocated to fund pay rises was sufficient to cover the Pay Review Body's recommendations. (Which it ought to have been if we are to consider the outgoing govt as "fiscally responsible", and not down-right corrupt.)

Left with the choice to find the funding that was necessary to fund the Body's recommendations, or to chose to go against the recommendations - this was a dirty trap set by corrupt Tories - and much of the electorate, including you, it would appear, have swallowed the LIE that these were in some way "foreseeable" costs, when in fact they absolutely were not.

I disagree with your assessment - both Labour and OBR have what they would like to regard as highly capable, supremely talented folk in their teams. They fouled up.

Many things you claim could not have been found even with a high quality of diligence are those which could have been discovered by any half-competent accountant - eg: what level of pay rise have you assumed in the forecast for ............

Having spent part of my career doing very similar work for corporate acquisitions where a full understanding of the target organisation is critical I feel I can make this claim with some authority.

Finally, if you felt uncomfortable about the responses you were being given, you would make an assessment of an appropriate contingency - this they apparently failed to do.

In summary - they were incompetent, less than diligent or dishonest - possibly all three.

Their explanation is simple politics - blame someone else so we are not held accountable.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I disagree with your assessment - both Labour and OBR have what they would like to regard as highly capable, supremely talented folk in their teams. They fouled up.

Many things you claim could not have been found even with a high quality of diligence are those which could have been discovered by any half-competent accountant - eg: what level of pay rise have you assumed in the forecast for ............

Having spent part of my career doing very similar work for corporate acquisitions where a full understanding of the target organisation is critical I feel I can make this claim with some authority.

Finally, if you felt uncomfortable about the responses you were being given, you would make an assessment of an appropriate contingency - this they apparently failed to do.

In summary - they were incompetent, less than diligent or dishonest - possibly all three.

Their explanation is simple politics - blame someone else so we are not held accountable.

All that this says is that you prefer to invent something than to believe the simplest explanation.

I'll stick with the known facts, thanks, rather than your conjecture. ymmv.

 

[Jacob]

It is thoughtful and very well crafted. It is 300 years old, has largely stood the test of time. That does not make it right today. I think EB may be disappointed if we didn't at least challenge his views.

Article here. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/12/sorry-role-mp-be-representative-not-delegate
This is not really a matter of opinion.
We are of course free to argue about it for ever more but it's fairly basic stuff such as you'd learn if you did GCSE British Constitution.
Never too late!
https://www.google.com/search?q=MP+...CDI3MTlqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Chris152]

Bit of a deviation, but sort of amusing and somewhat relevant, I think. It needs updating to include thought-saving words like 'woke' and the image quality is poor, but worth a quick gander.

 

[RobinBHM]

.

All that this says is that you prefer to invent something than to believe the simplest explanation.

I'll stick with the known facts, thanks, rather than your conjecture. ymmv.

Terry is a cut n dried Tory, it’s obvious he reads the Daily Telegraph

 

[Blackswanwood]

.

Terry is a cut n dried Tory, it’s obvious he reads the Daily Telegraph

I may not always agree with him and he’s big enough to stick up for himself but I find he gives some thought to what he posts rather than just parrots a view he’s read or heard elsewhere.

IMO the tendency to immediately label someone simply because they hold a different view is a big part of the tribalism problem that holds us back.

Just saying.

 

[RobinBHM]

IMO the tendency to immediately label someone simply because they hold a different view is a big part of the tribalism problem that holds us back.

But Terrys post is an example of tribalism. It’s just a “Labour is **** rant” no nuance or detail

 

[Blackswanwood]

A name I expected to have cropped up by now is Rudy Giuliani. The last I heard he was having his assets seized. It will be interesting to see if Trump throws him a lifeline.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Article here. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/12/sorry-role-mp-be-representative-not-delegate
This is not really a matter of opinion.
We are of course free to argue about it for ever more but it's fairly basic stuff such as you'd learn if you did GCSE British Constitution.
Never too late!
https://www.google.com/search?q=MP+...CDI3MTlqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Predictable and utterly arrogant remarks from you.

Chris Bryant who penned the article seems a decent politician (there are a few).

There are inevitably a diversity of views and circumstances attached to all issues - some where politicians may be better informed and not be persuaded by short term social media influenced public opinion, and those upon which they should act.

His article sums up negative attitudes issue excellently -

" The nub of the problem is that some people seem to think they’re engaging with the whole wide world when they delve into Twitter and Facebook................ they don’t see the world with all its diversity and difference of opinion...........they experience politics in a bubble of their own creation.

they get steadily more and more certain of their views ........... and less able to admit that there might be another sincerely held, legitimate point of view. That brand of personalised conviction becomes self-fulfilling and any challenge has to be fought off in ever angrier terms. When robust argument won’t suffice, personal abuse becomes acceptable and then standard. Thus is bred a form of fundamentalism that brooks no opposition or dissent"

In this he is spot on - with few exceptions there is always room for debate and compromise.

 

[Blackswanwood]

But Terrys post is an example of tribalism. It’s just a “Labour is **** rant” no nuance or detail

I don’t read it as such and think there’s more than a grain of truth in what he says.

The argument (for me) starts to feel a bit like the one about gifts. Diehards at one end argue Starmer did nothing wrong and their opposing diehards that he should be put in the Tower for accepting bribes. Those in the middle think he made a mistake and should show contrition before moving on. (I’m in the middle)

Labour did what they had to do to make sure they got into power. It would have been easy to put caveats on their election promises such as “we assume the pay review bodies have not recommended more than x” but that would have confused the message. That’s politics unfortunately and as he says the Conservatives would have done the same even if it suits them now to claim they wouldn’t.