State of the Discussion

To me, what is more interesting is Charles' 'who is this Vance person of which you speak' and at the same time eagerly searching for Youtube videos of UK citizens complaining about Muslims taking over the country. Call it the Texas two-step...

Vance exists to elevate himself and to service the billionaires that have enabled his political career in the hopes of getting their political desires fulfilled. Vance would be less distractible and more motivated in his pursuit of a Project 2025 agenda, cutting deals with the Techno-Oligarch wannabes to make sure that they were rich enough and isolated enough from government interference to not be affected by the restrictions brought in the name of Christian Nationalism.
On the bright side, Vance is a negative-charisma asshat with none of Trump's instincts for the grift. I don't think he'd get the same sort of laughing support that Cheetolini gets, and Newsom would mock him incessantly.

He can't be wrong about everything all the time... :)
Yes, based on his public utterances, he is demonstrably able to do so.
I don't think Vance is wrong in the sense of being mistaken or misinformed. He's an intelligent person, he understands the reality, and he understands what he is saying.
He's lying. Bullshitting, gaslighting, whatever you want to call it. He speaks intentional falsehoods to obscure the truth and mislead people.
He's a liar.
Trump is also, but I think Trump half-believes his own bullshit. By "half believes" I mean I think his thought process is something like "I want this to be true, so I'm going to act like it is true".
Vance seems, to me, profoundly more cynical than that. He knows what he's saying is false and just says it anyway.

This, in today's Times (a Murdoch paper), is by William Hague, ex-leader of the Conservative Party, and gives a rather better impression of what respectable UK rightwingers think of what is happening in the US, including on free speech:
John Bolton raid is a chilling sign of rule by vendetta
Former US security adviser was courageous in his criticisms of Trump’s approach to Putin — his treatment is alarming
William Hague
At 7am last Friday, the FBI searched the home of the former US national security adviser John Bolton. Boxes of files were taken away, apparently as part of an investigation into the misuse of classified documents — a regular topic in Washington, as both Presidents Biden and Trump have got into trouble over keeping sensitive material at home.
Such a raid might or might not be justified but there is a chilling aspect to it. Bolton is a highly effective critic of Trump’s foreign policies, from the well-informed vantage point of having been a close adviser to the president in his first term. In recent weeks his analysis of Trump’s negotiations with Vladimir Putin has been perceptive, widely broadcast and damning, enraging his old boss.
That this was followed by a raid on Bolton’s home and office by law enforcement officers is suggestive, to say the least, of the use of state power to pursue a vendetta, a pattern more familiar in authoritarian regimes than in the United States. It raises questions about free speech in America and should draw our attention to the cogent argument Bolton has been making about the recent talks on Ukraine.
I know Bolton, although he is some way from being a kindred spirit — he has always been more hawkish than I am over matters such as negotiations with Iran. But his understanding of world affairs is acknowledged and there is no doubt that he speaks from huge experience and sticks to his principles. This left him appalled by his experience in the first Trump administration. Afterwards he wrote a damning book, which the Justice Department attempted to block.
A few years ago, Bolton told me he thought there had never been any serious chance of a deal with Kim Jong-un over North Korea’s nuclear weapons when Trump was enthusiastically pursuing that in his first term. Bolton witnessed those talks at first hand but thought that the president, desperate to be seen as the great dealmaker who could build a rapport with a dictator, was completely unrealistic: North Korea was never going to throw away the powerful leverage in world affairs that a nuclear arsenal provides. Kim was turning up to the meetings for the prestige and acceptance that came from being treated with great respect by the president of the US.
Having seen Trump make this mistake at close quarters, it is not surprising that Bolton was unsparing in his comments about the same opportunity being afforded to Putin earlier this month — invited on to US soil in Alaska for a long talk with Trump, looking like the two great world leaders trying to settle matters graciously between them. He pointed out that even the initial set-up of the meeting was “a great victory for Putin — he’s the rogue leader of a pariah state and he’s going to be welcomed into the United States”.
Bolton went on to give a depressing but realistic assessment of the chances of a deal. “I don’t think there’s a peace deal anywhere in the near future,” he said. “As long as Putin is advancing on the battlefield, even if it’s three yards in a cloud of dust, he’s not going to give up anything if he can get away with it.”
He argued that Trump’s desire to be awarded the Nobel peace prize was a highly motivating factor in his behaviour but that he was being played by Putin, whose “flattery campaign is working Trump over, as seen by Trump’s statement recently about how Ukraine shouldn’t have taken the war on. Ukraine didn’t take anything on, they were invaded”.
These accurate comments incensed Trump, who complained about the “very unfair media” who were “constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton”. That such personal comments from a president were followed within ten days by FBI agents turning up at the house of the offending critic is what suggests a system moving towards vendettas rather than justice.
At the same time, events in recent days only confirm that Bolton’s analysis of the Alaska talks was spot on. Putin did a professional job of buttering up Trump, by saying, for instance, that the war would never have happened if Trump had been in charge at the time.
Trump’s comment to President Macron that “I think he wants to make a deal for me” was revealing of how Putin will have played the personal flattery for all it’s worth, as Bolton mercilessly pointed out. But in the past few days, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has revealed how little Moscow’s position has changed, dismissing hopes of any imminent meeting between Putin and President Zelensky, accusing European leaders of not being interested in peace and asserting that any future security arrangements for Ukraine must be agreed with Russia and even China.
Lavrov has been performing this function for decades — after Putin has had an encouraging chat with a foreign leader, Lavrov makes sure nothing really happens. In doing so, he follows Putin’s orders to the letter: I have been in meetings with him, years ago on Syria, when he has repeatedly telephoned Putin for precise instructions on what he can say or agree to. It is a double act particularly suited to lulling Trump into a false sense that he is on the edge of the peace prize while the Russians continue to intensify the war.
What has happened this month is that Putin, seeing Trump was finally getting impatient with him and threatening tougher sanctions, offered a meeting to play on Trump’s weakest spot — the wish for a big deal with a powerful dictator. Once Putin pulled that off beautifully, Zelensky and European leaders had to rush to Washington to administer the only known antidote: an equal dose of chumminess, flattery and reason to cancel out Putin’s poison.
At the end of all that rushing about, the essential problem remains. Putin will not end the war unless the terms make it impossible for a diminished Ukraine to function as a sovereign and defensible state, or unless he cannot gain by further fighting. The only way to change that calculation is to raise the cost to him of continuing to fight. Trump’s approach of avoiding new pressure on Russia while chasing an unlikely peace deal is at least as likely to lengthen the war as shorten it.
As Bolton has put it, what Trump should really do is tell Putin “if they don’t get serious about withdrawing Russian forces from Ukraine that he will significantly increase US assistance … to restore Ukraine to its full sovereignty and territorial integrity”. That is very good advice.
It is a great pity that it is not currently heeded in the White House — and it will be a tragedy for America and the world if such advice cannot be given without fear of reprisal.

most Germans (or Central Europeans in general for that matter) can't grasp the English/US paranoia about national ID cards*.
Can't speak for the UK. In the US folks who object to / are afraid of national ID cards are conservatives who think the government is going to exploit national ID to round them up and do horrible things to them.
Irony is dead. Or, if not dead, laying in a gutter somewhere bleeding.

I'm reasonably certain they can't prove they are.
They don't have to. They are OFFICIAL thugs (authorized to NOT show their face, to NOT have to show their writ of authority etc.) and have military hardware to back them up. And where does it say that they have to be legal residents let alone citizens? Is there a law (not that they would care) banning Kapos or foreign mercenaries from serving as muscle?
For that matter, I don't routinely carry proof of citizenship with me. Do you?
Yes, I do. But this is Germany and the national ID card serves so numerous useful functions that most people would carry it even if not legally mandated (the mandate got dropped after reunion iirc). To the contrary, most Germans (or Central Europeans in general for that matter) can't grasp the English/US paranoia about national ID cards*.
Of course we know that one reason the GOP vehemently opposes the idea is that it would serve as voter ID too, thus making disenfranchisement more difficult.
I even remember attempts in at least one state to exclude US passports from the valid ID list (only liberals travel abroad, thus needing a passport).
*not even counting those that argue with The Book of Revelation that any ID card would be the Mark of the Beast.

And yet, you have somehow absorbed his talking points and have brought them here to share with all of us.
He can't be wrong about everything all the time... :)

There are activists on the left bringing books into schools that are, at best, not age-appropriate or shouldn't be in schools at all.
It strikes me that if removing books from a school library doesn't amount to banning books, the presence of a book in a school library doesn't amount to advocacy of whatever point of view it presents. Or a requirement that any given kid read them.
If people don't want kids reading about Heather and her Two Mommies, then mom and dad should sit junior down and explain that they don't want him or her reading it. If they are concerned that their kid is gonna sneak a copy from the library and read it sub rosa, they can talk to the librarian and let them know they don't want their kid checking it out.
Or, you know, pay attention to what your kid is reading.
As opposed to, not only can my kid not have it, but *nobody's* kid can have it.
Books that are banned tend to be about (a) sexuality or (b) race. I respect parent's wishes to have some control over how those topics are presented to their kids. Those parents don't have the right to deny *every freaking kid* access to them.
I don't listen to Vance and care very little about anything he has to say.
And yet, you have somehow absorbed his talking points and have brought them here to share with all of us.
I blame ChatGPT.
GIGO

Gotta cite? Either way, "activists" don't sound like people weilding sanctioned government power.
These days, telling the difference can be difficult.
Gotta cite?
Here's a list of books. Arguments can be made about which books for which student age ranges, if at all.
Controversial Books in US Schools

Other countries, including the UK, have their own sets of often overlapping problems.
Undeniably. But we don't have a fascist executive.
Non-political officials are not fired for telling the truth.

things they posted on X or other social media platforms.
Oh, and on social media platforms, see "going through people's devices to see if they have ever badmouthed Trump or his government".
And Lucy Connolly was imprisoned, after the murder of the three little girls in Southport by a British citizen, for tweeting (within hours of the attack) on X:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care? If that makes me racist, so be it.”
The murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport by Axel Rudakubana sparked widespread rioting in town centres and outside migrant hotels, following false claims that the attacker was a Muslim small boat migrant."
Yup, we don't have the equivalent of the (currently rather hypothetical) first amendment, or untrammelled freedom of speech, but I know in which country I'd feel safer criticising the government. Or being a lawyer and representing clients against the government. Or against the POTUS. Etc etc etc.

You're right. I was thinking about free speech problems in the UK.
This is a mad Vance trope. He said it to object to the fact that "pro-life" demonstrators were not being permitted to protest within some hundreds of feet of abortion clinics, which was intimidating women going in. Then he extended it to people "silently praying" within the perimeter (possibly questionable, but needs to be seen in the context).
The "hundreds of people being arrested for peacefully protesting" are demonstrating in reaction to a recent decision of the government to proscribe an organisation called "Palestine Action", which explicitly advocates "direct criminal action tactics to halt the sale and export of military equipment to Israel". PA recently did tens of millions of pounds worth of damage when they broke into an RAF base and sprayed gallons of paint on planes and into their engines. After that they were defined as a terrorist organisation, and proscribed, which made protesting in their support illegal under the Terrorism Act. I'm not crazy about any of this, particularly the arrest of the protesters, but I don't think that by any definition it amounts to much of a free speech problem compared to a regime which is going through people's devices to see if they have ever badmouthed Trump or his government, and then refusing them entry to the US, or if there already deporting them.
On the books banned in the school districts, incidentally, it is estimated that 64% of them are by women, and disproportionately by women of colour.
Free speech problems, eh? Didn't we have a thread recently called motes and logs?

Is there a playbook for this, because it’s the same tired thing I’ve seen too many times?
There are activists on the left bringing books into schools that are, at best, not age-appropriate or shouldn't be in schools at all. Then there are the idiots on the right who want to ban any book that slightly offends them.

Removing books from school libraries isn't the same as banning them.
It is the same as banning them from the school-district libraries in question, which is what GftNC’s statement was limited to. But build your straw man and make your irrelevant point.
Is there a playbook for this, because it’s the same tired thing I’ve seen too many times?

Worried though we are by much of it, I can't think of a single thing which compares in any way with what is happening in the States.
From here, democracy in the UK isn't looking so great either. Here, as far as I know, hundreds of ordinary people are not being arrested, and some are spending time in prison for participating in peaceful protests or for things they posted on X or other social media platforms.
Charles, your LLMs are (not for the first time) letting you down badly.
The LLMs often seem to lean left.
Or perhaps you have been paying too much attention to e.g Vance and co.
My sentiment is more of "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right of me..." I intensely dislike the public faces of both the left and the right in the US.
I see that in at least 65 US school districts, among the banned books is The Handmaid's Tale.
Removing books from school libraries isn't the same as banning them. They're still available for anyone who wants them. They may even benefit from the Streisand effect.
Your "facetiousness" does nothing but parrot the idiotic, ignorant and dangerous talking points of the people who are driving your country's democracy to its destruction.
My "facetiousness" is based on what I'm hearing from UK citizens.

Charles, your LLMs are (not for the first time) letting you down badly. Or perhaps you have been paying too much attention to e.g Vance and co.
I see that in at least 65 US school districts, among the banned books is The Handmaid's Tale. Your Health Secretary is an anti-vaxxer and general science denier. People who criticise the POTUS are the targets of vindictive legal intimidation. Attempts are being made (so far successfully) to skew the electoral system to keep the current party in power, and armed forces are being deployed in US cities to intimidate the population. How would you describe what is happening in your country - are you indeed (as russell reminds you suggested before the inauguration) pretty much muddling through?
I have never denied that in the UK we have many problems (post-Brexit, the economy, Reform). Worried though we are by much of it, I can't think of a single thing which compares in any way with what is happening in the States. Your "facetiousness" does nothing but parrot the idiotic, ignorant and dangerous talking points of the people who are driving your country's democracy to its destruction.

The nice part of my job was that it was in the position to tell the owners of the batch jobs, i.e. the application programmers, to actually fix the damn things, so the ops folks didn't have to keep dealing with problems. Ah, the power!

One of my first contract jobs was third shift application support in the data center at ATT. Some COBOL batch jobs blew up each night, mostly data errors or JCL typos.
The operations folks loved that I would tell them what the problem/fix was, so they had a better idea of what to tell the next support person. When it was quiet I would sit in the op center and help, with them telling me what to do I loved that job

I'm assuming this is a joke, Charles. If not, do expound.
I was being a bit facetious. However, the US isn't the only Western country with numerous political and social problems. Other countries, including the UK, have their own sets of often overlapping problems.

What russell said.
Plus, some people are sufficiently insecure that they are afraid not to flaunt their nominal superiority (or at least superior position) by being obnoxious to everybody else. Remind you of any current Presidents?