Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Bear in mind:

1. Many Americans view their country as the beginning and end of the world.
2. A lot of domestic politics happens at state level, or lower.

As a result, their main concern about their president is that they look presidential and talk tough to foreigners.

Actual US Senator for Alabama. Say what you like about Jeff Sessions, he wouldn't have gone here.

Fuck Carlson, Fuck Putin.

Both cunts.

In other events, I'd love to see the likes of Truss, Farage etc. along with others that love to blow smoke up Tr*mp's** arse having to respond to Orange Shitgibbon's latest comments that go along the lines of "Nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if Russia took it over if you didn't raise your defence spending like I tell you to..."



** As if he's known for paying any of his own bills - legally, anyway.

Spoonman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:58 pm In other events, I'd love to see the likes of Truss, Farage etc. along with others that love to blow smoke up Tr*mp's** arse having to respond to Orange Shitgibbon's latest comments that go along the lines of "Nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if Russia took it over if you didn't raise your defence spending like I tell you to..."



** As if he's known for paying any of his own bills - legally, anyway.

'Oh he's just colourfully [implication: there's an ounce of wit to what he said] stating what should be obvious: pay your bills.'

'And what if anyone who wasn't him said this?'

'They'd be fucking dead, that's what. Oh wai-'

A good piece on how Biden's age is covered.

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/real-reas ... n-age-talk

For the media, Biden’s age is good for horserace coverage and “both sides” credibility. Biden is in fact old, it’s not a matter of opinion. And the evidence that voters care about it makes it a legitimate subject for discussion from a level of remove.

Still, mainstream media organizations, such as the New York Times, place a lot of value on being fair, objective, and politically neutral—which in a practical sense often translates to publishing a comparable amount of negative-sounding coverage about Democrats and Republicans. With Biden and Trump differing on basic questions such as “Is the president above the law, like a dictator?”—Biden says no; Trump says yes, at least if it’s him—this forced balance leads to distortions.

To make the levels of negative coverage remotely similar, Biden’s age and mental acuity have to, on their own, balance out many things (including Trump’s age and mental acuity). Think of it this way:

I've not read the US Constitution, but someone who says he has, claims that Trump's stated intention to encourage Russia to invade America's allies is treason under said constitution.

I think the rather telling point that Trump’s age and mental acuity are at the very least comparable or equivalent - or rather worse than- those of Joe Biden is going to take some communicating to the voting great American public over the next 10 months. Joe Biden will (still) be 81 years old by the time of the election, but Trump will be negligibly trailing him in the age stakes at 78 - no spring chicken, but possibly with the same mental capacity as a spring chicken. Biden, objectively, really should be enjoying his retirement by now, but Trump really shouldn’t be in the running either, and for this, the Republican Party is once again culpable. A serious party would have blocked Trump years ago. Even Ronald Reagan was only 77 after he’d served his two terms as president, for Pete’s sake.

It does look as though the Democrats have decided to tough it out and stick with Joe, but time’s running out. I wonder whether Hilary’s interested in a re-match?

Trump is way worse cognitively than Biden, though hard to tell because we're so used to lying.

I think the problem is, Biden’s team have to answer something Trump’s team do not. Biden’s age may make voters waver, because a wavering voter has at least some level of intelligence that they are considering issues. Trump’s negligible difference in age but vast gulf in ability, intelligence, morals etc. don’t register because anyone thinking of voting for him is already ignoring more red flags than a Chinese military parade. The fact is Trump could be 99 and turn up to a rally having forgotten to put his trousers on and they’d *still* vote for him because he’s going to fuck up people they don’t like. The age isn’t an issue because NOTHING is an issue.

You can’t beat him by normal means. The only way he’s going down is either legally, naturally (as in, 78 years of cheeseburgers catches up with him), or by someone as nasty as he is winding him up so he oversteps the line and does something that loses him a bunch of support. And even then, I suspect there’ll be a hardcore who *still* would vote for him.

Another mass shooting.

This time the parade to celebrate the super bowl win.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... st-updates

Somebody running amok with a gun again. We’re long past the time when news like this could be regarded as in any way surprising, or even in any way unusual.

But of course, as Trump will no doubt say, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

The Governor of Missouri, who is a gun loon, is getting his arse kicked hard. Though in gairness we don't know if the guns were legally held at this stage or not.

Remember when American music stars died of drugs.
But that was OK because they were prescription drugs (and they were good ole boys).

Legally held mass shooting guns are much the same.


No laws broken trumps violent deaths in otherwise law abiding America.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:25 pm Though in fairness we don't know if the guns were legally held at this stage or not.

Does it actually matter? If the shooter used legally held guns (quite probable) illegally to attack dozens of innocent citizens, that's just as bad if they used illegally acquired weapons, surely ? In fact, America's whole problem is effectively defined by the laxity of the control legislation that means that weapons can so easily be acquired legally by those of malevolent intent.

Missouri has very lax gun laws, as well:

According to 2021 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Missouri has the ninth-highest rate of gun deaths in the US.

It’s also one of the states with the highest rates of gun ownership. About 48.8 per cent of adults in Missouri own firearms, according to a 2020 study by the RAND Corporation.

Missouri’s gun laws are considered some of the laxest in the country, with the Giffords Law Center calling them “appallingly weak.”

No background check is required to purchase a firearm, nor is a permit for concealed carry. There is no ban on assault weapons.

There are also no restrictions on gun ownership for people who have been convicted of violent crimes, and firearms are not required to be locked up to prevent children from accessing them.

In 2021, Missouri enacted a law called the "Second Amendment Preservation Act," which made federal gun regulations illegal statewide, and prohibited law enforcement from enforcing any federal laws that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”

A federal judge later struck it down, having ruled the state law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Reading between the lines this was some sort of altercation that got out of hand. Not sure how or why, but that argues even more strongly for gun control.

Illegal weapons are usually stolen legal weapons, but the distinction matters in America. Mass shootings, particularly school shootings, tend to be done by people who have got their weapons legally and who (not just with hindsight) very obviously ought not to have had them. People like Mike Parsons feel the heat from these, not so much from criminals shooting people with illegal weapons. There's literally no point in campaigning for UK style gun control in the US.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:08 pm Illegal weapons are usually stolen legal weapons, but the distinction matters in America. Mass shootings, particularly school shootings, tend to be done by people who have got their weapons legally and who (not just with hindsight) very obviously ought not to have had them. People like Mike Parsons feel the heat from these, not so much from criminals shooting people with illegal weapons. There's literally no point in campaigning for UK style gun control in the US.

Yep one thing they can do is to do what they did in the 1990s and ban assault weapons.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:08 pm There's literally no point in campaigning for UK style gun control in the US.

Not without seriously addressing a mental health crisis and a worsening drug issue.