Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

He's such a dickhead it's unreal. I hope he has a heart attack soon, the fat orange shit.

So shocked that anyone would dream of assassinating him when people talk about him like this! There's no way that constantly hearing such things would ever influence someone towards violence, no...

Trump is openly advocating genocide by suggesting they ship Palestinians to Indonesia. Jamie won't be the only person who feels like this is not just a bad thing to say, but illegitimate and disqualifying.

I imagine killing Trump makes things worse. I don't think it's helpful when people call for it. But what is the appropriate response when the president you voted for says things that are not just dumb and impractical, but also evil and illegal? I wish it were at least condemnation — a lot of Americans seem to be cheering it on instead.

[Jamiet99uk]

He's such a dickhead it's unreal. I hope he has a heart attack soon, the fat orange shit.

So shocked that anyone would dream of assassinating him when people talk about him like this! There's no way that constantly hearing such things would ever influence someone towards violence, no...

I'm not advocating for anyone to take a shot at him, I'm hoping his cheeseburger-based diet will do the job for us.

[Octavious]

The chances of Trump serving a third term are zero. He's won, he's got his two terms, and he's getting on with doing the things he wants to do. To the people who matter to Trump he has achieved their respect and is looking forward to his place in history and influencing the next in line. He won't risk that by staying on unnecessarily and doing a Biden. Unless Musk has invented a regeneration machine he's not staying.

Then why is his party proposing this amendment to the Constitution?

The same reason that drone and missile swarms have become a popular way of fighting in modern conflicts. The opposition only has a finite amount of capacity to counter Trump's policies. If a hundred policies suddenly appear on the radar at the same time it will be impossible for them to dedicate the resources to effectively fight against all of them.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The chances of Trump serving a third term are zero. He's won, he's got his two terms, and he's getting on with doing the things he wants to do. To the people who matter to Trump he has achieved their respect and is looking forward to his place in history and influencing the next in line. He won't risk that by staying on unnecessarily and doing a Biden. Unless Musk has invented a regeneration machine he's not staying.

Then why is his party proposing this amendment to the Constitution?

The same reason that drone and missile swarms have become a popular way of fighting in modern conflicts. The opposition only has a finite amount of capacity to counter Trump's policies. If a hundred policies suddenly appear on the radar at the same time it will be impossible for them to dedicate the resources to effectively fight against all of them.

I feel like the useful addition to basically every Oct thread is to say "And it's still bad".

Yes, this proposal has basically zero chance. It would require 2/3rds majorities in both houses. It's put forward by a representative with real legal trouble. Not going to happen.

But term limits are a third rail for a good reason. This was basically not even a topic of discussion since the FDR fudge because both sides of the aisle had at least some minimal decorum. It degrades US politics for this to even be debated.

The Trump strategy, which has been described out loud as "flooding the zone with bullshit" by Bannon, is despicable and terrible for democracy. That it seems to still be the MO of the Trump admin is a serious mark against it.

[Jamiet99uk]

As further evidence that Musk is an actual fascist, it is now being reported that he has made a substantial donation to "Tommy Robinson"'s legal fees.

For those who don't know, "Tommy", real name Steven Yaxley-Lennon, is an extreme right wing white nationalist in the UK who is currently in jail serving a prison sentence for contempt of court, the offence itself stemming from his breach of a court order, ordering him to stop a campaign of online abuse against a 15 year old Syrian boy.

He is the most disgusting piece of racist shit you could possibly imagine, and this is who Elon Musk is aligning himself with.

[CaptainFritz28]

He's such a dickhead it's unreal. I hope he has a heart attack soon, the fat orange shit.

So shocked that anyone would dream of assassinating him when people talk about him like this! There's no way that constantly hearing such things would ever influence someone towards violence, no...

Trump is openly advocating genocide by suggesting they ship Palestinians to Indonesia. Jamie won't be the only person who feels like this is not just a bad thing to say, but illegitimate and disqualifying.

I imagine killing Trump makes things worse. I don't think it's helpful when people call for it. But what is the appropriate response when the president you voted for says things that are not just dumb and impractical, but also evil and illegal? I wish it were at least condemnation — a lot of Americans seem to be cheering it on instead.

I'm confused.
I can't find anything about Trump saying that he wants to relocate Palestinians to Indonesia. It seems that his envoy said something like that... maybe? There appears to be very little coverage on something that, if it is as Jamie says, would be huge news.
And if that's what was the case... how would that be genocide? Genocide is the extermination of an ethnic group. I think it would be really rather odd, and certainly not the plan to go forward with, but genocide? You're really broadening your definitions with that one.

Also, I don't see how that excuses wishing death upon him. There are a lot of politicians whom I greatly dislike. There are many whom I believe should be jailed for their crimes. There are some whom I believe are guilty of advocating for murder, both in small numbers and by the millions.

But wishing them dead and cursing their name is a waste of breath and rather stupid. I fail to see how it is conducive to the construction of any unity within society or the achievement of any good. On the contrary, it propagates hatred towards individuals which becomes hatred towards their supporters, which leads to generalizations, more hatred, more division, and more violence. Call that a slippery slope if you like, but that's what has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.

I would like to stress this last bit as much as I can:
I, you, Jamie, Oct, everyone else here, all the rest of the constituents of our respective nations; we are individuals. There are some things we can do to cause political change, with great resources and numbers, and there is much that we cannot do as individuals.
So, in the position that we find ourselves, we are faced with the responsibility of the individual citizen: to act and speak at all times and to all people in a manner which brings positive societal and cultural change. That may be as simple as common courtesy, being kind to random strangers, and on this forum that means decency and at least an attempt at unity.
There will be no, I say NO change, at least nothing good, in politics unless we FIRST change the people themselves for good. Cursing at everyone who disagrees with you and wishing death upon your political opponents fails every single part of that.

I'm saddened that you point to a red herring to excuse Jamie here. I don't care how he feels or how many people feel similarly - his statement is idiotic on every level and for every purpose. What is the appropriate response? I think you know very well that it isn't what he said. There is nothing "legitimate" or anything that should be tolerated about the thought process that leads to "I want you to die of a heart attack." The fact that Jamie has done similarly so often that you are numb to it is sickening.

[Jamiet99uk]

https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-planning-deport-palestinians-gaza-indonesia

[Octavious]

I feel like the useful addition to basically every Oct thread is to say "And it's still bad".

I'm not sure how it's useful. As to whether or not it is bad, I guess that depends on how effective it is in delivering on electoral promises weighed up against consequences. Very hard to judge with any real authority until after the event.

But term limits are a third rail for a good reason. This was basically not even a topic of discussion since the FDR fudge because both sides of the aisle had at least some minimal decorum. It degrades US politics for this to even be debated.

Utter nonsense. Term limits serve no useful purpose whatsoever and are little more than politicians from the past using their influence to deny the will of the people. If the people want the same President 3 times in a row, they should have them. Trust the people to decide. The idea that it is wrong to even debate ending such a daft restriction on the people's ability to vote for who they want is ludicrous

[CaptainFritz28]

https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-planning-deport-palestinians-gaza-indonesia

Now I'm even more confused, because this shows that Trump didn't say anything about this, and the quotes that even this openly biased source provides display the official in a positive light, with the intent to aid Gazans and an understanding of the fact that there are just as many fanatics on the Israeli side as on the Hamas side, as well as the belief that the situation should be further assessed by actually visiting Gaza before making big decisions.

Sidenote: The source mentions that it takes its info from an article by NBC, which should be easy to find, but I cannot find it and it is not cited. NBC doesn't even list anything about this particular subject in their summary of the current state of the political climate regarding Gaza, and searching through their recent articles yields no fruit. Personally, I don't like relying on news that doesn't cite their sources, especially when those sources don't seem to exist.

How does any of this justify wishing Trump to have a heart attack?

[CaptainFritz28]

I think the USA may just have had its last ever "democratic" election.

I think you said the same thing about the 2016 election, and then about the 2020 election after 01/06/21.
I guess the ball of democracy keeps a rollin' until Jamie declares it to stop, and then carries on when he forgets that he determined it stationary? Does this imply that democracy in the U.S. is in a quantum superposition of existing and not existing based on Jamie's memory and observance of it?

Is democracy a wave or a particle? Or both?

[Jamiet99uk]

https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-planning-deport-palestinians-gaza-indonesia

Now I'm even more confused, because this shows that Trump didn't say anything about this, and the quotes that even this openly biased source provides display the official in a positive light, with the intent to aid Gazans and an understanding of the fact that there are just as many fanatics on the Israeli side as on the Hamas side, as well as the belief that the situation should be further assessed by actually visiting Gaza before making big decisions.

Sidenote: The source mentions that it takes its info from an article by NBC, which should be easy to find, but I cannot find it and it is not cited. NBC doesn't even list anything about this particular subject in their summary of the current state of the political climate regarding Gaza, and searching through their recent articles yields no fruit. Personally, I don't like relying on news that doesn't cite their sources, especially when those sources don't seem to exist.

How does any of this justify wishing Trump to have a heart attack?

I cannot find the NBC article either. I saw multiple sources citing an NBC article, but, as you say, if that is so, it should be easy to find, and I cannot find it.

Perhaps this was mis-reported. Let's hope that's true. I accept this may be the case.

[Jamiet99uk]

This is the problem of political debate in the world that Trump and Elon Musk and their ilk want to create. A world in which the truth does not matter and lying is good.

[Octavious]

This is the problem of political debate in the world that Trump and Elon Musk and their ilk want to create. A world in which the truth does not matter and lying is good.

Says the person who deliberately misunderstands the direction of the truth comment for the sake of trying to score cheap points. The reality is that you don't give a damn about the truth. If you believed that you could defeat Trump by lying the truth would never pass your lips

[Jamiet99uk]

This is the problem of political debate in the world that Trump and Elon Musk and their ilk want to create. A world in which the truth does not matter and lying is good.

Says the person who deliberately misunderstands the direction of the truth comment for the sake of trying to score cheap points. The reality is that you don't give a damn about the truth. If you believed that you could defeat Trump by lying the truth would never pass your lips

You defended deliberate lies being told by David Cameron on the floor of the House of Commons to score cheap points, because you supported him. Do we want to go over this again?

[Jamiet99uk]

I actually think truth and integrity in politics is very important. Which is one of the reasons why I dislike Keith Starmer so much.

[Octavious]

I actually think truth and integrity in politics is very important. Which is one of the reasons why I dislike Keith Starmer so much.

So if you could defeat Trump with a lie you'd rather stick to complete honesty and keep Trump in the Whitehouse?

[Octavious]

You defended deliberate lies being told by David Cameron on the floor of the House of Commons to score cheap points, because you supported him. Do we want to go over this again?

You're the one who keeps repeatedly bringing it up. It's not a difficult concept that you're pretending to struggle with. A simple example

May knife crimes: 613
June knife crimes: 580
July knife crimes: 549
August knife crimes: 489
September knife crimes: 490

Article in October: Knife crimes are rising

Technically true, but very much against the direction of truth

[Jamiet99uk]

Alright, let's re-live our slightly younger days and go back to the original issue.

The exchange in question was at Prime Minister's Questions in January 2016.

Jeremy Corbyn, then Labour leader, asked a question to David Cameron about whether the UK ought to be standing up to Google over claims Google was evading paying its fair level of UK tax.

Pointing at Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, Cameron's facetious reply was as follows:

"The idea that those two right honourable gentlemen would stand up to anyone in this regard is laughable. Look at their record over the last week. They met with the unions and gave them flying pickets. They met with the Argentinians, they gave them the Falkland Islands. They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais, they said they could all come to Britain. The only people they never stand up for are the British people and hardworking taxpayers."

Three claims in one short statement, all of them false, most of it outright lies.

There had been no specific meetings that week between Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and any trade unions on the specific issue of flying pickets. This was a pure invention on Cameron's part.

Turning to the issue of Calais, there there was a grain of truth among the lies, which was that during that week Corbyn had visited Calais and inspected conditions at a migrant camp. The only "meeting" that had not been invented by David Cameron's speech-writers. Corbyn had expressed concern about the squalid conditions at the camp and said that the UK Government should be raising the issue urgently with the EU, as current EU asylum rules were clearly not working. He particularly suggested that a small number of the migrants, who were direct family members of UK nationals, should have their claims processed more quickly.

Notwithstanding the flippant use of the phase "bunch of migrants" being derogatory and unpleasant, revealing what a nasty character David Cameron could be, the fact was that at no point had Jeremy Corbyn made a promise that all of the migrants currently encamped at Calais "could all come to Britain".

This was a lie. David Cameron was a liar, telling lies to score cheap political points.

You defended his lies, using the phrase I have mentioned in this thread. But it was not in the general direction of the truth. It was, as you put it just now, very much against the direction of truth.

Turning to the Falklands, another lie. Corbyn and McDonnell did not have any meetings with any representatives of Mauricio Macri's right-wing Argentinian government, either that week or in any of the preceding weeks. The idea that such talks had taken place was a fiction. As the shadow government, they clearly had no power to "give away the Falkland Islands" either. Cameron's comments were a desperately inaccurate misrepresentation of a much more nuanced personal viewpoint that Jeremy Corbyn had articulated some time earlier, which was that the UK and Argentina ought to enter into meaningful talks to end the trade boycott between the Falklands and most of South America.

The idea that Corby or McDonnell had made any kind of promise to unconditionally hand the Falklands back to Argentina was a lie.

Again, you defended Cameron, using the phrase I have mentioned in this thread.

I stand by my characterisation of your position.

[Octavious]

Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more compassionate to the Calais migrants than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more eager to reach a new agreement with Argentina over the Falklands than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have given the unions far more rights than the Tories? That is the general direction of the truth, and a truth I would have thought you'd support

I can't, in all honesty, remember exactly what comments I defended and what I didn't. If you can find our conversation that would be useful. I recall defending a couple of errors Cameron had made in his statements that weren't technically true, but we're in keeping with the wider truth.

It goes without saying that the entire point of a shadow government is to eventually become the actual government with the power to attempt to do everything they claim to want to do, so quite what your point is there I have no idea.

[Jamiet99uk]

Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more compassionate to the Calais migrants than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more eager to reach a new agreement with Argentina over the Falklands than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have given the unions far more rights than the Tories? That is the general direction of the truth, and a truth I would have thought you'd support

I can't, in all honesty, remember exactly what comments I defended and what I didn't. If you can find our conversation that would be useful. I recall defending a couple of errors Cameron had made in his statements that weren't technically true, but we're in keeping with the wider truth.

It goes without saying that the entire point of a shadow government is to eventually become the actual government with the power to attempt to do everything they claim to want to do, so quite what your point is there I have no idea.

What is my point? Ok let me try to explain to you.

First of all, the three lies told by Cameron were working up to the line "The only people they never stand up for are the British people and hardworking taxpayers." (which I included in the quote).

Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the history of post-war UK politics knows that the Tory party are the class enemy of "ordinary hard-working people", and their track record at the time of Cameron's words, in overseeing the longest sustained decline in real wages in the UK since records began was proof of that. If we return to Cameron's first assertion about Corbyn and McDonnell's fictional meeting with "the unions", there is a logical incompatibility with his conclusion. The only way that his conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn "never stood up for hard-working people" could be true is if none of the 7+ million people who are represented by trade unions are British working people.

The lies Cameron told were part of a narrative leading up to a conclusion which was a lie.

My broader, simpler point is that purposeful lying by policymakers is bad.

If we simply accept lies because they vaguely refer to elements of things which could be true, even though the broader narrative is a lie, then we empower lying by our leaders and we declare that the truth does not matter. That makes bigger lies easier and easier to get away with.

That is what you are comfortable with, apparently.

What if I said this:

"Octavious had a meeting with Nick Clegg this week, during which he praised Donald Trump's campaign strategy (while not agreeing with all of Trump's policies), defended Elon Musk, and encouraged Clegg to use his political influence to dismantle Britain's railway network."

That's in keeping with the wider truth based on your previous statements, so that's fine, isn't it?