Someone is going to make so much money selling iron lungs when they roll out polio 2.0 in a couple of years.

I had never heard that expression before and had to look it up. Very interesting but they’ve been obsolete for decades now.

The procedure since the 1960s has been to delivery positive pressure ventilation to expand the lungs via tracheotomy, rather than housing the patient in the irong lung (negative pressure chamber).

Did get me reading about Paul Alexander too. The man who used an iron lung for 70 odd years, achieving a degree and a career as an attorney and author. Worth a read!

Not trying to prove you wrong. Just wanted to share info on the subject. Thanks for the comment. Sent me down a rabbit hole!

I’m detecting the presence of some form of personality disorder here.

don’t understand how technology can fuck their tiny brains forever.

Have you heard of the expression “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”?

Because it seems rather appropriate for this.

You make a point. It would need to be comprehensive in it’s reach.

The best way to achieve it in my view would be to strip much of the Presidential powers away. Trump has clearly shown that there is far too much power concentrated in the executive and that many of the unwritten rules are as good as non-existent.

I don’t have enough knowledge to claim to know exactly how to do it. It would require a bipartisan effort and extensive legal work to ensure it’s watertight. Giving Congress more power and giving the executive more accountability would be the way though I believe.

As much as I would personally like to see those responsible held to account I think you’re right in that it would cause untold amounts of harm. It is the right thing to do but there would be huge fallout.

Personally I think America and it’s reputation would benefit much more from putting in place robust laws, even amendments to the constitution to openly and definitively show the world “guys, we’re really sorry. This will absolutely not happen again. Ever”. That’s the only way.

If you prosecute those responsible without changing anything then they will be back with even more vengeance and even more extreme and messed up ideas.

If you’re just going to insult people without contributing to the discussion then go elsewhere.

I’m not going down to your level, just report your behaviour and let the mods deal with it.

There’s no need for it. I came here to talk about politics, not engage with whatever you’re doing.

And for your information there was a misunderstanding that me and the user amicably sorted out. Civil discussion. It’s a good thing. Try it.

I’m not quite sure what it was that I said to trigger that response but I was referring to a leader not accepting a salary to do the job, rather than a leader who doesn’t even have to take bribes which is what the user meant. It was a misunderstanding that was cleared up further in the comments.

I have no idea what part of my comment you’re responding to though. I apologise of this isn’t the case but it looks to me as though you’ve interpreted something in a particular way and used that to go on an angry tirade against Kier Starmer and the rise of right wing politics.

That’s fair enough but not what I was talking about. I’ll leave you to it.

Fair enough. It’s just crossed wires. Thanks for understanding. For what it’s worth I don’t think you’re wrong in many of your points on Starmer. I’m hopeful he’ll improve before he gets the chop but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t.

What’s your point? Other than being insulting.

I’m not shifting anything!

No mention of salary.

Pay. His pay. Another way to describe that is his salary.

I see by pay you meant “taking a bribe”. You didn’t say that until just now. That’s where the confusion is coming from.

I’m not really appreciating the rudeness either. I can’t be arsed with this. Lets just leave it there.

Wait, are you effectively saying that Kier Starmer took the job of Prime Minister because he was too afraid to say “no”?

Surely it would take more of a spine to say “no” to the money being offered than to say nothing and accept it?

I’m sorry I’m not following your logic here at all. I still can’t see why refusing a salary makes someone spineless. I think the opposite is true.

Transparency International highlighted the UK has slipped due to record spending on election campaigning . Labour, Conservatives and Reform have been guilty of this in various instances.

It’s easy to blame a single party, as some commenters in here might, but this is very clearly a systemic issue.

There need to be strict limits on campaign spending and absolute transparency about where that money has come from.

No more overseas donors. No more Think Tanks taking donations for “research”, from opaque sources and funneling it back to the party.

Politics needs to be cleaned up and freed from the grasp of these rich wankers who think because they have more money they can set the rules on how we as a people are governed.

I get it, you think he’s spineless and corrupt. That’s obvious.

My point is only why does it make a leader - any leader - that doesn’t accept payment for their duties spinless?

That’s what I’m interested in. Why you’re conflating the two. Why does not accepting a salary to be a political leader make someone spineless?

You don’t need to repeat that you think he’s spineless and corrupt. I get that. That’s up to you. I’m talking about the broader sense of any leader here.

I was hoping for a discussion around that topic, rather a repeat of of your views on Kier Starmer. You’ve made them clear. Thanks.

Welcome to America.

Anything and everything is susceptible to private wealth and exploitation of the poor.

Doesn’t matter if it’s your health or your property or you name it. It can and will be exploited to take money from you. The plebs.

I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re misinterpreting what I am asking.

I haven’t made an argument as to whether he is spinless or not. I am purely interested in why you think not having to pay a leader is a bad thing rather than a good thing.

That’s all I want to discuss. I’m not arguing for or against his actions. You’ve gone off on a tangent.

So why do you think not having to pay a leader is a bad thing? Because I personally would view that as a positive as they are not motivated by financial gain. From your point it sounds like a leader should demand to be paid a decent amount?

I didn’t say any of that. I’m simply asking why not having to pay someone is a negative? Or makes them spineless?

a leader so spineless that you don’t even need to pay him? Who’da thought?

Sorry but what do you mean by this? I’m struggling to see how this is bad. Would you rather a leader took all the money they could get their hands on? Because that’s how you end up with Trump.

I think what this actually means is that some companies are now using technology to extract as much money as they possibly can from you and me.

I bet it will soon be the majority (if it isn’t already).

Am I fine with age verification? Yes, I am. Especially for social media. I don’t want children being brainwashed by right wing propaganda that is prevalent on there and I believe the state has a duty of care to protect citizens.

No channels of privacy? No, I am not fine with that. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that private conversations are not possible though, either via chat encryption or any other method. Is there any for the UK?

Chat control? I’m not sure. That sounds vague. I would need to know the specifics and what it’s protective purpose is.

You are welcome to call me blind. You still haven’t presented any evidence that the government is keeping secret social scores on it’s citizens though, nor any evidence of state wide internet restrictions on privacy. If there is such evidence and I believe it is a threat to an open and democratic society then I will act.

The USA is currently descending into authoritarianism, in my view precisely because “freedom of speech” and freedom of ownership are so closely protected. Malicious forces can spread whatever messages they want and influence whoever they want with impunity.

My view is that the current UK government is not a threat to the people. The elites looking to purchase power and influence and eventually become the government are the biggest threat. Social media is their most effective weapon.

I would argue that if you can’t see that then you are blind yourself.

I’m happy to agree to disagree though. Civility and all that.

I sense a dangerous level of willful disbelief.

Disbelief of what? That the UK government is keeping secret social scores on it’s citizens? Yeah. Until I see evidence of that.

They are starting to police the internet more though. I personally think that’s due to the huge amounts of misinformation used to manipulate the public via social media. I.e. The Southport Riots which were inflamed by spreading of lies about immigrants.

This is probably an unpopular opinion here but I think there should be more control. Peoples view of reality is being completely distorted by the internet and what they see and read. It will only get worse with AI and deepfakes. I personally think it does need more policing. There is a good documentary called "Hypernormalisation’ by Adam Curtis that explores the reality distortion we experience. It is worth watching.

My political views are that one of governments main duties is to protect citizens from harm. That includes protecting them from business malpractices from social media companies and foreign influencers looking to destabilise the population. I believe our government should take action to prevent harm from those.

I am not being wilfully ignorant of what they are doing. I support it. That may make me unpopular here but so be it. I stand by that belief. I will change it if I am presented with tangible evidence of things like social ratings for citizens or nefarious uses of peoples information. I haven’t seen any this far though. Feel free to send some if you have any.