You may be right - but it's good to demonstrate conclusively just how wrong Musk has been and continues to be. Whether he or any other poster bothers to educate themselves that's up to them.
Starmer says there is no need for further child abuse inquiries because now 'it's time for action' GB News is more sympathetic to rightwing causes than any other broadcaster and it has been running a lot of stories about calls for an inquiry into the Oldham rape gang cases. Christopher Hope, its political editor, suggested the grooming gangs issue was not fully covered in the final report from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. He asked Starmer if he could be certain this was not still happening today, and he asked if he was worried that a new inquiry might reveal his failings as DPP. ‘That’s why Elon Musk says, were you complicit in the rape of Britain”. Hope claimed that just going after the far right was not an adequate response.
In response, Starmer said that Hope had covered what he did as DPP when he was a journalist at the Telegraph. He went on:
You looked at my record for five years as I was doing the job. You got access to all of the materials … I’ve set out what I did. I actually changed the system, because I could see some of the things that were going wrong.
Starmer said the victims suffered “sickening abuse” and were not listened to. That is why he changed the way the CPS dealt with these cases. And it was partly why he went into politics, he said.
On the question of this call for an ever increasing number of reviews, there have been a lot of reviews, including localised reviews, including into Oldham – for example, the mayor of Manchester did his review. And the Jay report was intended to look at the different types of exploitation that went on. It was a comprehensive review.
What Professor Jay said was really important there [see 9.44am], because I completely agree. This doesn’t need more consultation, it doesn’t need more research, it just needs action. There have been many, many reviews … frankly, it’s time for action.
Updated at 06.15 EST 05.57 EST Starmer accuses Tories of being 'casual about honest, decency, truth and rule of law' in rape gang claims The next question came form Robert Peston from ITV News. He said Elon Musk had said Starmer should be in prison. That was libellous. Would Starmer sue?
Starmer did not address the libel question (he won’t sue, because that would be madness), but he again defended his record. He said:
There’s nothing secret about being director of public prosections. Every single case I prosecuted went to court, was looked at by a judge. I have an independent inspectorate, access to every single file of every case, any time he or she wanted. And I was overseen by the attorney general, which for three of the five years was a Tory attorney general.
So … rather than me trying to say any more about what I did when I was in office, you can access this material. You know where it is, you know what facts are …
Once we lose the anchor that truth matters, in the robust debate that we must have, then we are on a very slippery slope.
And when politicians, and I mean politicians who sat in government for many years, are casual about honesty, decency, truth and the rule of law, calling for inquiries because they want to jump on a bandwagon of the far right, that affects politics because a robust debate can only be based on the true facts.
And that’s why this is actually an important point about our politics, not about what anybody may or may not say on Twitter. That actually isn’t the main issue.
The main issue is, what are politicians here doing to stand up for the things that matter to our democracy?
That’s why I want to call this out, because I think it really matters, and it matters not just to me, not just to the Labour party. It ought to matter, and it used to matter to all political parties, and it’s a sign of where the Tory party have got to that we’re even having this debate.
Updated at 05.57 EST 05.39 EST Starmer hits back at Musk and Tories over rape gangs claim, attacking those 'spreading lies' and 'amplifying far right' Beth Rigby, the Sky News political editor, also asks about Elon Musk, and about his attacks on Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister.
Starmer says that he thinks most people are more interested in the NHS “than what’s happening on Twitter”.
But he says he does want to address in detail this issue.
Let me start with this, child sexual exploitation is utterly sickening, utterly sickening.
And for many, many years, too many victims have been completely let down, let down by perverse ideas about community relations or by the idea that institutions must be protected above all else. And they’ve not been listened to, and they’ve not been heard.
And when I was chief prosecutor for five years, I tackled that head on, because I could see what was happening, and that’s why I reopened cases that have been closed and supposedly finished. I brought the first major prosecution of an Asian grooming gang in the particular case – it was in Rochdale, but it was the first of its kind …
We changed, or I changed, the whole prosecution approach, because I wanted to challenge, and did challenge the myths and stereotypes that were stopping those victims being heard.
So we changed the entire approach, not without criticism at the time, I might add.
But when I left office, we had the highest number of child sexual abuse cases being prosecuted on record.
Now that record is not secret as a public servant, it’s all it’s there for all of you or everybody to see.
I also called for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. I’ve called for that decade ago. The Tories did nothing about that, for those 10 long years, including when the Jay report came out.
Having defended his record as DPP, Starmer goes on to attack those who have criticised him and Jess Phillips. He does not name Elon Musk, but he is clearly referring to him. Towards the end he also explicitly attacks the Tories, who have joined Musk in calling for an inquiry into the Oldham rape gangs. He says.
Those that are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible, they’re not interested in victims. They’re interested in themselves.
Those who are cheerleading Tommy Robinson are not interested in justice. They’re supporting a man who went to prison for nearly collapsing a grooming case, a gang grooming case. These are people are trying to get some kind of vicarious thrill from street violence that people like Tommy Robinson promote. **Note Musk has been calling for Tommy Robinson to be released. The man that nearly nullified the prosecution of a grooming case that he's now trying to attack Starmer with*
And those attacking Jess Phillips, who I’m proud to call a colleague and a friend on protecting victims - Jess Phillips has done 1,000 times more than they’ve even dreamt about when it comes to protecting victims of sexual abuse throughout her entire career …
We’ve seen this playbook many times, whipping up of intimidation and threats of violence, hoping that the media will amplify it.
Jess Phillips does not need me or anybody else to speak on her behalf. But when the poison of the far right leads to serious threats to Jess Phillips and others, that in my book [means] a line has been crossed.
I enjoy the cut and thrust of politics, the robust debate that we must have, but that’s got to be based on facts and truth, not on lies, not on those who are so desperate for attention that they’re prepared to debase themselves and their country.
So this government will get on with the job of protecting victims, including child sexual abuse, mandatory reporting, accelerating the processes.
But what I won’t tolerate is this discussion based on lies without calling it out. What I won’t tolerate is politicians jumping on the bandwagon simply to get attention when those politicians sat in government for 14 long years, tweeting, talking, but not doing anything about it – now so desperate for attention that they’re amplifying what the far right is saying.
So that’s what I say about Jess Phillips, Thank you.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
So you want fresh elections every time someone's poll numbers drop? Count me in.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
So you want fresh elections every time someone's poll numbers drop? Count me in.
In England you can have a general election at any time, decided by the PM, but not more than 5 years since the last one. So yes, poll numbers can factor into dissolving Parliament and establishing a new government. Neat huh?
I honestly did not know that and appreciate you pointing it out. Thanks!
That's insanity, though.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
That's only partially correct. The government and party that are in power can choose to call. An election. Polls have got absolutely nothing to do with it, anymore then they do in the US.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
That's only partially correct. The government and party that are in power can choose to call. An election. Polls have got absolutely nothing to do with it, anymore then they do in the US.
Politicians are creatures that watch polls like a cat watches a crinkle ball. Polls can be a factor, they are not the driving force.
Youre correct. ...... However, what happens is the party in power would call an election when they have favourable polls that might start to dip. If they are unpopular, they are not going to call an election before they have to.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Youre correct. ...... However, what happens is the party in power would call an election when they have favourable polls that might start to dip. If they are unpopular, they are not going to call an election before they have to.
Or the Monarchy can look at the polls and dissolve the government.
Honestly, I'm not as surprised by this as maybe I should be. Feel like things up North have kinda been slowly heading this way for a while. Even some of my liberal canuck friends were growing tired of him.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Youre correct. ...... However, what happens is the party in power would call an election when they have favourable polls that might start to dip. If they are unpopular, they are not going to call an election before they have to.
Or the Monarchy can look at the polls and dissolve the government.
Can King Dissolve Parliament?
Many were quick to point out that the monarchy's ability to dissolve Parliament may have been fully checked by the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which restricted the conditions of an election to the normal five-year cycle or two additional conditions.
An election can only occur outside the normal cycle if two-thirds of the House of Commons votes in favor of an election, or if the government lost a no-confidence vote and no alternative government was confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
However, the bill's language caused much confusion and gridlock in 2019, leading Parliament to pursue an additional measure, which repealed the 2011 act and instituted the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, which Queen Elizabeth II assented to in March 2022.
Under that new act, the Sovereign regained the ability to grant a dissolution of Parliament on request of the sitting prime minister. Whether the Sovereign can do so on their own is untested but based on the text of the new law unlikely.
Youre correct. ...... However, what happens is the party in power would call an election when they have favourable polls that might start to dip. If they are unpopular, they are not going to call an election before they have to.
Or the Monarchy can look at the polls and dissolve the government.
Can King Dissolve Parliament?
Many were quick to point out that the monarchy's ability to dissolve Parliament may have been fully checked by the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which restricted the conditions of an election to the normal five-year cycle or two additional conditions.
An election can only occur outside the normal cycle if two-thirds of the House of Commons votes in favor of an election, or if the government lost a no-confidence vote and no alternative government was confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
However, the bill's language caused much confusion and gridlock in 2019, leading Parliament to pursue an additional measure, which repealed the 2011 act and instituted the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, which Queen Elizabeth II assented to in March 2022.
Under that new act, the Sovereign regained the ability to grant a dissolution of Parliament on request of the sitting prime minister. Whether the Sovereign can do so on their own is untested but based on the text of the new law unlikely.
Youre correct. ...... However, what happens is the party in power would call an election when they have favourable polls that might start to dip. If they are unpopular, they are not going to call an election before they have to.
Or the Monarchy can look at the polls and dissolve the government.
In a word. No. The monarchy is 1000% ceremonial regards politics in the UK. Just would not happen.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Youre correct. ...... However, what happens is the party in power would call an election when they have favourable polls that might start to dip. If they are unpopular, they are not going to call an election before they have to.
Or the Monarchy can look at the polls and dissolve the government.
In a word. No. The monarchy is 1000% ceremonial regards politics in the UK. Just would not happen.
Can the King call an election? The royal prerogative means that although the power legally lies with the King, the King exercises that power on the advice of his ministers, primarily the prime minister.
Emphasis mine.
I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole of British law.
I think its somewhat gray as to whether the monarchy are part of the process or of they have a legal right to do it by themselves ....
Dissolution happens either automatically at the expiry of its statutory maximum duration, or by Proclamation, a legal document authorised by the King and issued under the Great Seal.
The Prime Minister “requests” that the King dissolve Parliament. Under the Lascelles Principles, the Monarch could only refuse such a request if Parliament remains “vital, viable, and capable of doing its job”
I can tell you categorically the monarchy would never try to do so. The monarchy have nothing to do with British politics. Musks call for King Charles to dissolve parliament is just noise from someone ignorant on British politics. Who likes to make headlines.
To add.... Maybe its like a bunch of crazy state legislation that is on the books but would never see enforced ?
Going after our allies rather than our enemies. He's already working with the the convict American future leader. May as well endorse one who is already in jail in Germany............
Of course he builds a lot of vehicles in China and there's that new battery plant he is building there so he wouldn't want to pi$$ them off.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
How long until we have actual toddlers (my son's age and down) in prominent positions of authority and power? Not long would be my guess.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
mentality wise, we already have toddlers in position of power.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So you have seen the light and realize what a [censored] and dangerous a-hole Musk is? Musk called Phillips a rape genocide apologist - because he's an ignorant SOB looking for headlines. Phillips has responded. (Or maybe you just cut and paste any old noise from your chamber?)
Interesting food for thought that lines up with the conversation mgh and I were having. Tucker Carlson's 2022 quote carries quite a new meaning nowadays.
Elon Musk Is Making One of His Own Conspiracy Theories a Reality Emily Tamkin Wed, January 8, 2025 at 4:45 AM CST·7 min read
Last week, President Joe Biden awarded the 2024 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the U.S. government’s highest civilian honor, to 18 people. On his way out the door, Biden almost seemed to be trolling his successor and his supporters with the honorees, who included some of the right’s greatest modern villains: Hillary Clinton, Bono, and George Romney (Mitt’s deceased moderate father) among them. Then there was Robert F. Kennedy, Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” and Jane Goodall—curious choices as science skeptic RFK Jr. prepares to take over America’s federal health regime. Maybe most troll-seeming (or, if you like, the most liberal fever dream) of all among the medalists, though, was George Soros, the Hungarian-born Jewish financier and philanthropist who is also the subject of countless right-wing conspiracy theories.
To some, the medal was due recognition for Soros’ decades of philanthropic efforts through his Open Society Foundations to promote more democratic, humane, and just societies around the world. To others, it was a sad little end to the Biden administration: a man who did not manage to stop Donald Trump from returning to power awarding a man who worked toward promoting liberal democracy only to see it wane worldwide in what are likely his final years alive. (Soros is 94.) And to people who have long railed against Soros’ political influence, including Elon Musk, it was a disaster.
“A travesty that Biden is giving Soros the Medal of Freedom,” the world’s richest man tweeted on X, the platform he owns, sharing a post that quoted himself saying that Soros “fundamentally hates humanity” and is trying to erode the fabric of civilization. In another post, Musk offered: “George Soros looks quite good here. Must be the lighting,” along with an A.I.-generated image of Biden handing a medal to Emperor Palpatine, the villain from Star Wars.
This is well-trod territory for Musk, who, in 2023, in addition to saying that Soros hates humanity, likened him to Magneto, a Jewish Marvel supervillain. This summer, Musk accused the Soros family of being puppeteers of elected Democratic officials. Just this week, he said that Soros is creating a “fake asylum-seeker nightmare that is destroying Europe and America.”
This is antisemitic. As I’ve written before, it is, in fact, so obviously antisemitic that to take time explaining why is to risk humoring the worst-faith arguments, but in any case: Musk’s posts about Soros go far beyond criticism of what Soros has actually said and done, and instead assign to a Jewish person (who survived the Holocaust, but no matter) malicious motivation and practically all-consuming power. It is not antisemitic to say that billionaires have too much influence in politics, or that you disagree with how Soros spends his philanthropic dollars or political donations. But to go a step (or several steps) further, as Musk does, and allege that Soros is plotting to corrode humanity or civilization plays on old tropes about powerful Jews seeking to undermine or poison the societies to which they can never truly belong. (I will here say that I do not know what is in Musk’s head or heart, and I do not mean to assign intent to him. I do not know, nor do I care, whether Musk is an antisemite. I only know that these are classic antisemitic tropes.)
But it is not only antisemitic, as smears around Soros often are. In Musk’s particular case, the smears can be viewed as projection. The dark myth of Soros represents what Musk, in his newly political life, seems to aspire to: an all-seeing, all-knowing power and influence to shape governments to his will and his interests because of his bottomless pockets. Musk’s political donations began to lean Republican in 2017, and, since then—and particularly over the past four years—he has pursued a level of power and influence on American government and society at the highest levels and scale. After buying Twitter, he donated a quarter of a billion dollars to help elect Trump and other Republican candidates. Since succeeding, he has strong-armed members of Congress, inserted himself almost literally at Trump’s right hand, and earned a de facto administration position co-leading the “Department of Government Efficiency.” Now he’s setting his sights globally, too. He’s turning himself into a mirror image of what he has accused Soros of being all these years, pursuing the very power that he has claimed Soros has.
It has long been obvious that many of Soros’ critics do not actually care about money in politics, or about the distribution of power between ultrawealthy individuals and everyone else, or whether a society in which billionaires can put their thumbs on the scale of elections and governance can ever really be an open, equitable society. For example, in 2022, then–Fox News personality Tucker Carlson asked, “Why is some foreign-born billionaire allowed to change our country fundamentally?” He put forth this question on Fox News, helmed by Australian-native billionaire Rupert Murdoch. When one listens to the substance of the critiques, they are rarely about Soros having and using money in politics, but rather about what he uses his money for: things like supporting progressive prosecutors in district attorney races, or, through OSF, funding NGOs supporting immigrants (not “migrant caravans,” though he was accused of funding those). That, say, Tucker Carlson would be unhappy with this was never especially surprising: If your life’s work is putting forth a vision of society in which some are more entitled to civic participation than others, you will probably be against someone who is trying to ensure equitable small-d democratic opportunity for all. And that someone like Carlson or Musk would be hypocritical in their critiques of Soros and his project is not especially shocking, either.
What distinguishes Musk’s Soros smears, instead, is that Musk is himself presently doing the things that he is accusing Soros of doing while accusing Soros of doing them. It’s one thing to remind people that you said Soros is trying to corrode civilization, but quite another to do so while tweeting that the king of England should dissolve his country’s own government. Soros is too involved in world politics? Musk, the richest man in the world, is boosting Germany’s far-right AfD party while staying nightly in the U.S. president-elect’s property, achieving the distinction of being his “most important donor, most influential social media promoter and a key adviser on policy and personnel,” per the New York Times. And plenty have accused Soros (and his son and successor, Alex) of being puppet masters, but most of them haven’t gone on to meet foreign leaders alongside the president-elect.
Perhaps there are self-justifications. Soros is often accused of being a secretive, shadowy, behind-the-scenes power (though he has in fact published books outlining his ideology), whereas Musk is tweeting out his opinions. Maybe Musk, Trump, and their allies feel that Musk doesn’t count as a behind-the-scenes power if he’s front and center on the scene.
But here, too, I do not wish to be like Musk, pretending I can read a billionaire’s mind and that I know what he tells himself about his plots and plans. Fortunately (or not), I do not need to do that in order to describe what is happening: Musk is engaging in antisemitic smears in accusing Soros of destabilizing humanity, yes. But more importantly, in the meantime, the tycoon is marshaling his wealth, his megaphone, and his personal influence to move U.S. politics and world governments exactly where he wants them to go. There’s little wonder Elon Musk is attacking the founder of Open Society. In his vision of society, power is more open to Musk than to anyone else.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Really excellent read - I never thought yahoo would have such quality content. Seems to be a political tactic that is employed a lot - accuse your opposition of doing something nefarious while doing that exact thing. Deflect, distract, antagonize.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
The Yahoo article exposes why something like this is such a complete red herring and complete trash. Assuming you couldn't work that out for yourselves already.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Really excellent read - I never thought yahoo would have such quality content. Seems to be a political tactic that is employed a lot - accuse your opposition of doing something nefarious while doing that exact thing. Deflect, distract, antagonize.
Elon Musk says DOGE probably won't find $2 trillion in federal budget cuts Jan. 9, 2025, 12:34 AM EST
Tech billionaire Elon Musk said Wednesday that his budget-cutting effort on behalf of President-elect Donald Trump would most likely not find $2 trillion in savings, backtracking on a goal he set earlier as co-head of a new advisory body, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Musk told political strategist Mark Penn in an interview broadcast on X that the $2 trillion figure was a “best-case outcome” and that he thought there was only a “good shot” at cutting half that.
Musk’s lowered estimate is a significant downgrade from his earlier view. At a rally for Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York on Oct. 27, Musk said he’d be able to cut the federal budget by “at least $2 trillion.”
That figure was quickly dismissed as implausible by budget experts, who said the entire discretionary budget was only $1.7 trillion. Musk hadn’t waved people off the number until Wednesday, and it has been widely cited in reports about DOGE’s plans.
Musk, along with former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, is co-leading the DOGE budget-slashing effort, which Trump named in reference to an internet meme. The advisory panel has no official authority and is expected to make recommendations to the White House after Trump is sworn in for a second term. The Trump transition team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Musk’s updated estimate.
Get the latest breaking news and must-read articles from NBC News Experts have said Musk and Ramaswamy would need to propose cuts to mandatory programs such as Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, to achieve significant savings. Musk himself has warned that cuts could mean “hardship” for some. Penn, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, noted that Clinton was able to balance the federal budget toward the end of his time in the White House, and he asked about Musk’s plans.
“Do you think the $2 trillion is a realistic number now that you’re looking more closely at it?” he asked.
“I think we’ll try for $2 trillion. I think that’s the best-case outcome,” Musk said. “But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting 1,” he said, meaning $1 trillion in spending cuts. Musk, though, didn’t admit an early defeat, saying he could still help Trump achieve “an epic outcome.”
“If we can drop the budget deficit from $2 trillion to $1 trillion and free up the economy to have additional growth, such that the output of goods and services keeps pace with the increase in the money supply, then there will be no inflation. So that, I think, would be an epic outcome,” he said.
Penn also asked whether Musk had “identified some cuts that you’re really looking at, that you think will be successful.” Musk didn’t name any specific cuts, though he said generally that it’s a “very target-rich environment for saving money.”
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And there are some who fall for it hook, line and sinker.
When you look at the US budget and expenditures (the average voter of course having no clue), it would be impossible to have those kinds of cuts without going for The Big 3 (health care, defense and social security). That’ll pretty much be political suicide.
The other alternative is to increase revenue, which is also political suicide if you do it for the entirety of the population. If you were to reimpose something like the Eisenhower tax brackets, then you lose that sweet, sweet donor money.
Something has to come to a head though. Not for the Boomers, but for guys like you and me though.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Campaign promises are less sincere than teenagers looking for paradise by the dashboard light.
No argument there, but there's been more definitive/specific talk of annexing Canada, Panama, and Greenland and how they'd want to do that than there has been on lowering prices/inflation.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
No argument there, but there's been more definitive/specific talk of annexing Canada, Panama, and Greenland and how they'd want to do that than there has been on lowering prices/inflation.
Or China, or Russia. More time is being spent on how to attack and take over our allies than addressing our enemies. But that's always been the school yard bully mentality. Push around the weak who have little power to push back while avoiding the strong kids on the playground.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
