Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
No Protestant majority county joined the Free State
You said: "only THE [repeat, THE] Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922".
Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities. They should have been given to the Free State.
I stand to be corrected but I think the border districts voted for Ulster which meant that those 'further inland' were disregarded.
Nobody ever got to vote one way or the other "for Ulster" if by that you mean "Northern Ireland" which included (and still does) only 6 out of 9 counties of historic Ulster.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
Yes, i mean Murray brought us some great moments but he is not a world force any more. He might roll back the years/injuries and go deep but hes not winning it. Norrie could on top form.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
How much was she paid to wear that? A lot, I imagine. All she had to do was wear it
She might have made the sensible calculation that she’s not big and powerful enough to have a long successful grand slam career, especially as it involves soul destroying levels of commitment to a sport, to the exclusion of all else
Instead she can swan around for 2-3 seasons, make $10m, then take up her offer at Cambridge. Not a bad option
She may have seen what life on tour is really like and decided on a different course as you say. Can’t help but think the right (and stable!) coach would’ve helped steer her through this tricky early period of her career.
The border followed county boundaries, no Irish county was bisected by the border. "! QUOTE "
Are you saying for Fermangh voted for the Republic but was compelled to be within Northern Ireland? Anyway I'm off; Mrs Cole is calling me for my evening meal. Have fun everyone
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
The border followed county boundaries, no Irish county was bisected by the border. "! QUOTE "
Are you saying for Fermangh voted for the Republic but was compelled to be within Northern Ireland? Anyway I'm off; Mrs Cole is calling me for my evening meal. Have fun everyone
"The provisional border in 1922 was that which the Government of Ireland Act 1920 made between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Most Irish nationalists hoped for a considerable transfer of land to the Free State, on the basis that most border areas had nationalist majorities. However, the Commission recommended relatively small transfers, and in both directions. This was leaked to The Morning Post in 1925, causing protests from both unionists and nationalists.
In order to avoid the possibility of further disputes, the British, Free State, and Northern Ireland governments agreed to suppress the overall report, and on 3 December 1925, instead of any changes being made, the existing border was confirmed by W. T. Cosgrave for the Free State, Sir James Craig for Northern Ireland, and Stanley Baldwin for the British government, as part of a wider agreement which included a resolution of outstanding financial disagreements. This was then ratified by their three parliaments. The commission's report was not published until 1969."
I refer you to my comments on Ireland elsewhere! Rules don't necessarily apply or certainly didn't about 100 years ago!
The border followed county boundaries, no Irish county was bisected by the border. "! QUOTE "
Are you saying for Fermangh voted for the Republic but was compelled to be within Northern Ireland? Anyway I'm off; Mrs Cole is calling me for my evening meal. Have fun everyone
In 1918, there was a Nationalist majority across the two Fermanagh seats, and across the three Tyrone seats.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
That Lewis Hamilton chap - he’s going nowhere in his sport with all that jewellery he wears. World champion? World chumpion more like.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
That Lewis Hamilton chap - he’s going nowhere in his sport with all that jewellery he wears. World champion? World chumpion more like.
Personal think bling is for the birds - and do NOT mean females by that!
Also believe it's as wrong to criticize a young woman for wearing jewelry makes as much sense, as when my Daddy Dearest used to criticize yours truly for not getting a haircut, back in the day when I still had hair to cut!
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
As well as Cameron Norrie, we have had Kyle Edmund in the top 16 and reaching a GS semi and Dan Evans as high as 21 in the world but they barely get a look in. 4 world class players (Edmund out with injury) but only one gets mass coverage. Hopefully Watson, Dart or Boulter can get into week 2 for the women.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
I suspect the Lib Dems PR demand without a referendum is an opening gambit, which would end up being negotiated down to a PR referendum. What's for sure, though, is Davey knows that the SNP seeking to potentially use the next election as a plebiscite on indy means Labour have no other option than a deal with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
It's more a hubris nemesis thing. When you compete (and I have competed very little) it is a mix between wanting to stride out as the big I am, and being careful in case you are sparked out in the first round. Or equivalent.
I think the feeling with Emma R is that she has done brilliantly but is far from the finished product and there is a sense that she is being told what to do and wear by IMG. Players get a tonne of money for appearing in even the early rounds of major tennis tournaments and good luck to them all but there is something about the girl next door (copyright IMG) appearing in jewelry which costs more than the average wage.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
I suspect the Lib Dems PR demand without a referendum is an opening gambit, which would end up being negotiated down to a PR referendum. What's for sure, though, is Davey knows that the SNP seeking to potentially use the next election as a plebiscite on indy means Labour have no other option than a deal with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.
Coalition negotiations might be very protracted if we get an indecisive result.
Maybe the smart move for the Tories in those circumstances would be to offer a confidence and supply deal to Labour.
I refer you to my comments on Ireland elsewhere! Rules don't necessarily apply or certainly didn't about 100 years ago!
The border followed county boundaries, no Irish county was bisected by the border. "! QUOTE "
Are you saying for Fermangh voted for the Republic but was compelled to be within Northern Ireland? Anyway I'm off; Mrs Cole is calling me for my evening meal. Have fun everyone
In 1918, there was a Nationalist majority across the two Fermanagh seats, and across the three Tyrone seats.
Re: Ireland 1918, keep in mind that NOT all who voted for Sinn Fein were committed to an Irish Republic. For example, Arthur Griffith the founder of SF whose advocated a "Dual Monarchy" solution with Ireland restored as separate Kingdom in personal union with King of Great Britain.
PLUS fact that many non-unionists voted for candidates of the Irish Parliamentary Party (formerly predominant in nationalist Ireland since Parnell's day) and committed to Home Rule within United Kingdom.
ALSO note that many Irish voters had zero opportunity to cast a vote at all in this election, because nearly a quarter of Irish parliamentary seats (25 of 105) were UNCONTESTED and won by acclamation by SF. (In six other seats there was no Unionist standing.)
Two of the totally uncontested states were in Cavan, a part of Ulster NOT included in future Northern Ireland.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
His surname is a mash-up of two random words - let’s choose “nosh” and “Carrie”.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Even ignoring your insane conspiracy nonsense at the end there you miss the or in the description of coup.
It doesn't need to be a violent to be a coup attempt.
I didn't miss either option - the reason I say it wasn't a coup is not because I'm arguing it wasn't violent - it's because there was no attempt at a 'change in the government' by those who stormed the Capitol. Storming the Capitol doesn't get you a change in Government. If you hang around long enough, all it gets you is taken out by any half decent SWAT team. I am also not saying that the group wouldn't have assaulted or killed Mike Pence had they seen him (though I feel they'd probably not have killed him), but that act, horiffic as it would have been, would still not have been a coup.
I am not condoning the rioters actions. I am saying it was a riot (at best), a terror attack at worst. That's enough, without trying to gussy it up as a coup because 'it's Trump'.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Murray = past his best but one of the best we have had and a champion
Norrie = good player but the maximum expectation and achievement for him in a grand slam will never be more than QF
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
It's more a hubris nemesis thing. When you compete (and I have competed very little) it is a mix between wanting to stride out as the big I am, and being careful in case you are sparked out in the first round. Or equivalent.
I think the feeling with Emma R is that she has done brilliantly but is far from the finished product and there is a sense that she is being told what to do and wear by IMG. Players get a tonne of money for appearing in even the early rounds of major tennis tournaments and good luck to them all but there is something about the girl next door (copyright IMG) appearing in jewelry which costs more than the average wage.
If my niece was criticized for wearing "over the top" jewelry would be just as offended as I am in this instance, with this young woman.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
Born in SA of Scottish and Welsh parents, brought up in NZ.
Lots of options for nationalities when he isn’t winning.
Meddling worked in Illinois? Maybe: "Some believed that, with 2022 looking tough for Democrats, Republicans could take the governor’s mansion in deep blue Illinois.
That got a lot more difficult after Tuesday’s Republican primary. Voters nominated conservative firebrand state Sen. Darren Bailey over a more traditional Republican candidate to take on Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) in November. Democrats are thrilled about this. Bailey wants to ban abortion in the state (except in cases where the woman’s life is in danger) and has described Chicago as “a crime-ridden, corrupt, dysfunctional hellhole.” He once tried to eject the city from the state, and he has former president Donald Trump’s endorsement.
Also, this is one instance where meddling by the other party appeared to pay off. The Democratic Governors Association and Pritzker poured money into the Republican primary to try to elevate Bailey and sink his rival, Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin."
This is unfortunate because Illinois is in serious trouble. Even after recent increases, it still has the lowest bond ratings of any state.
Barack Obama chose not to retire in his adopted home -- which should tell you something.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
His surname is a mash-up of two random words - let’s choose “nosh” and “Carrie”.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
His father is Scottish and his mother is Welsh. We know that mixture gives us purple.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I don't think that demanding equal treatment under the law is a narrow ideology. It commands a majority in both this country and the US. But even if it didn't, I would support the protection of the rights of minorities. Why should a gay American pay federal taxes when the federal government won't uphold their rights across the whole country?
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
It's more a hubris nemesis thing. When you compete (and I have competed very little) it is a mix between wanting to stride out as the big I am, and being careful in case you are sparked out in the first round. Or equivalent.
I think the feeling with Emma R is that she has done brilliantly but is far from the finished product and there is a sense that she is being told what to do and wear by IMG. Players get a tonne of money for appearing in even the early rounds of major tennis tournaments and good luck to them all but there is something about the girl next door (copyright IMG) appearing in jewelry which costs more than the average wage.
It's in the grand tradition - look up the origin of the 'tennis bracelet'.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
Born in SA of Scottish and Welsh parents, brought up in NZ.
Lots of options for nationalities when he isn’t winning.
His Welsh heritage meant that he was famously hampered throughout the 2021 season as Mark Drakeford taped him off on the baseline.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Even ignoring your insane conspiracy nonsense at the end there you miss the or in the description of coup.
It doesn't need to be a violent to be a coup attempt.
I didn't miss either option - the reason I say it wasn't a coup is not because I'm arguing it wasn't violent - it's because there was no attempt at a 'change in the government' by those who stormed the Capitol. Storming the Capitol doesn't get you a change in Government. If you hang around long enough, all it gets you is taken out by any half decent SWAT team. I am also not saying that the group wouldn't have assaulted or killed Mike Pence had they seen him (though I feel they'd probably not have killed him), but that act, horiffic as it would have been, would still not have been a coup.
I am not condoning the rioters actions. I am saying it was a riot (at best), a terror attack at worst. That's enough, without trying to gussy it up as a coup because 'it's Trump'.
Good god! Is this argument still going? It's worse than the Punic wars.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Stories have beginnings, and future Wimbledon champ can be made to look quite interesting
Yes absolutely but there is little to go on. What can you tell me about Norrie that will engage me, a neutral punter.
His surname is a mash-up of two random words - let’s choose “nosh” and “Carrie”.
Carrie does the noshing by all accounts
The Prime Minister is practising his service with Norrie. Balls in hand he’s ready to send it down the throat of his opposite number and improve his seeding.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
It's more a hubris nemesis thing. When you compete (and I have competed very little) it is a mix between wanting to stride out as the big I am, and being careful in case you are sparked out in the first round. Or equivalent.
I think the feeling with Emma R is that she has done brilliantly but is far from the finished product and there is a sense that she is being told what to do and wear by IMG. Players get a tonne of money for appearing in even the early rounds of major tennis tournaments and good luck to them all but there is something about the girl next door (copyright IMG) appearing in jewelry which costs more than the average wage.
If my niece was criticized for wearing "over the top" jewelry would be just as offended as I am in this instance, with this young woman.
The difference being between someone wearing jewelery because they want to, and wearing it because they’re being paid to.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
It really is more complicated than that. The 'individual freedom' thing for progressives (and I am pretty much on the progressive side) tends in fact to require all sorts of conformity from those who don't feel that way. For example the outlawing of all sorts of discrimination may well be excellent, but also limits 'individual freedom' to say, think and act in all sorts of ways. As one finds in 'cancel culture'.
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
Criticizing teenager for wearing her hard-earned bling while doing her thing DOES speak volumes - about where YOUR head is at.
It's more a hubris nemesis thing. When you compete (and I have competed very little) it is a mix between wanting to stride out as the big I am, and being careful in case you are sparked out in the first round. Or equivalent.
I think the feeling with Emma R is that she has done brilliantly but is far from the finished product and there is a sense that she is being told what to do and wear by IMG. Players get a tonne of money for appearing in even the early rounds of major tennis tournaments and good luck to them all but there is something about the girl next door (copyright IMG) appearing in jewelry which costs more than the average wage.
If my niece was criticized for wearing "over the top" jewelry would be just as offended as I am in this instance, with this young woman.
Get over yourself. The criticism here is that she wore over the top jewellery on court, with her Pr firm then making sure that the brand she was wearing carried as much media coverage as the match itself.
One thing carrying an adidas endorsement on a tennis racquet. Or for that matter a Tiffany’s endorsement off court. But a Tiffany’s endorsement on court seems a bit much when she still has much to prove.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Was looking dicey earlier. I feel a bit for Norris. The hype has been all Murray, yet Norris is ranked in the top 10, and seeded 9 here. BBC particularly bad on this score.
They always have been it seems to me. They are utterly obsessed with "celebrities" in a way that would make Heat magazine blush, every other show ends up as "Celebrity XYZ" it seems, and their sport reporting is no different.
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
I just find it astonishing that we have a top 10 player that most have barely heard about, at least if they listen/watch tennis via the BBC. Defund them.
Murray has a story which people are interested in. Ex Wimbledon champ who was at Dunblane, laid low by surgery won't give up now at Wimbledon again.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
Murray = past his best but one of the best we have had and a champion
Norrie = good player but the maximum expectation and achievement for him in a grand slam will never be more than QF
There's the difference.
He won at Indian Wells, the 'fifth' slam. He has the potential in a post big three tour to win a slam.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
It really is more complicated than that. The 'individual freedom' thing for progressives (and I am pretty much on the progressive side) tends in fact to require all sorts of conformity from those who don't feel that way. For example the outlawing of all sorts of discrimination may well be excellent, but also limits 'individual freedom' to say, think and act in all sorts of ways. As one finds in 'cancel culture'.
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
Living in a society that prohibits gay marriage imposes clear material costs on gay people. Living in a society that allows gay marriage imposes no costs on those who oppose it.
For all those hoping that Ukraine might cede territory:
In New Poll, 89% of Ukrainians Reject Ceding Land to Reach Peace With Russia Ukrainians back Zelensky’s position that peace talks can’t grant Russia land it has seized, WSJ-NORC poll finds
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
I don't think @HYUFD statement is correct about fundamentalists, although his main point stands about two countries in one country.
I checked Pew out of interest. Places like Florida (24% evangelical), Louisiana (27%), Georgia (38%). See:
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
It really is more complicated than that. The 'individual freedom' thing for progressives (and I am pretty much on the progressive side) tends in fact to require all sorts of conformity from those who don't feel that way. For example the outlawing of all sorts of discrimination may well be excellent, but also limits 'individual freedom' to say, think and act in all sorts of ways. As one finds in 'cancel culture'.
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
Living in a society that prohibits gay marriage imposes clear material costs on gay people. Living in a society that allows gay marriage imposes no costs on those who oppose it.
It does if they believe strongly in the Old Testament or Koran and that marriage should only be between heterosexuals for life.
Most religious people globally are not Anglican liberals
Is this a parody? As I'd assumed the tendency of people in American TV programmes to boil a kettle on a stove was just tv anachronism (it only bugs me when the character is British).
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
It really is more complicated than that. The 'individual freedom' thing for progressives (and I am pretty much on the progressive side) tends in fact to require all sorts of conformity from those who don't feel that way. For example the outlawing of all sorts of discrimination may well be excellent, but also limits 'individual freedom' to say, think and act in all sorts of ways. As one finds in 'cancel culture'.
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
You can safely ignore someone who loudly asserts that they are “progressive”. They will either be insufferably smug yet weirdly clueless, like @foxy - or a c*nt
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
I don't think @HYUFD statement is correct about fundamentalists, although his main point stands about two countries in one country.
I checked Pew out of interest. Places like Florida (24% evangelical), Louisiana (27%), Georgia (38%). See:
The look of wonder and awe that crosses the face of an American when first confronted with the sight of an electric kettle is still a remarkable thing to behold…
Clearly they were too busy tied up with getting that man to the moon.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
It really is more complicated than that. The 'individual freedom' thing for progressives (and I am pretty much on the progressive side) tends in fact to require all sorts of conformity from those who don't feel that way. For example the outlawing of all sorts of discrimination may well be excellent, but also limits 'individual freedom' to say, think and act in all sorts of ways. As one finds in 'cancel culture'.
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
Living in a society that prohibits gay marriage imposes clear material costs on gay people. Living in a society that allows gay marriage imposes no costs on those who oppose it.
Unless you believe it is immoral (like many Muslims do). Then you live in a society which permits evil
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
The problem is that the progressives want to make the rest of the world conform to their very narrow ideology.
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
I think that the opposite to the truth. The progressives want individual freedom (for abortion, for gay marriage etc). No one is forcing anyone to get gay married or to have an abortion. What the Republicans are doing is forcing their morals on other people.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
It really is more complicated than that. The 'individual freedom' thing for progressives (and I am pretty much on the progressive side) tends in fact to require all sorts of conformity from those who don't feel that way. For example the outlawing of all sorts of discrimination may well be excellent, but also limits 'individual freedom' to say, think and act in all sorts of ways. As one finds in 'cancel culture'.
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
Living in a society that prohibits gay marriage imposes clear material costs on gay people. Living in a society that allows gay marriage imposes no costs on those who oppose it.
I see what you are getting at, but suppose you are married and believe that marriage means one man one woman and all that, then your (traditional and by no means perverse) meaning of marriage is not communally available to you - only available as a private or secret thing.
I'm not opposing things. Just pointing out the limitations of progressive approaches. They are restrictive.
The look of wonder and awe that crosses the face of an American when first confronted with the sight of an electric kettle is still a remarkable thing to behold…
Clearly they were too busy tied up with getting that man to the moon.
I thought they didn't work well in the US because they're limited to 110V, and so they take an age to come to the boil?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
They all however voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and most of them were also part of the Old Confederacy
Is this a parody? As I'd assumed the tendency of people in American TV programmes to boil a kettle on a stove was just tv anachronism (it only bugs me when the character is British).
Personally would find a separate device for boiling water unhelpful clutter; when I want to boil some water (say for hot chocolate or VERY occasionally tea) a kettle on the stove is simpler.
And on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific) I am NOT alone.
Probably as Ian What's-His-Number implies, because were just too stupid to properly boil water.
The look of wonder and awe that crosses the face of an American when first confronted with the sight of an electric kettle is still a remarkable thing to behold…
Clearly they were too busy tied up with getting that man to the moon.
Yeah, I don't get it. But then I've seen Americans microwaving cups of tea so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
A tribunal has heard three Met Police officers shared racist Whatsapp messages comparing Meghan Markle to a golliwog and an image of a young boy in a hoodie which was captioned as a 'monkey in the jungle' and superimposed with an image of a penis
Is this a parody? As I'd assumed the tendency of people in American TV programmes to boil a kettle on a stove was just tv anachronism (it only bugs me when the character is British).
Personally would find a separate device for boiling water unhelpful clutter; when I want to boil some water (say for hot chocolate or VERY occasionally tea) a kettle on the stove is simpler.
And on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific) I am NOT alone.
Indeed not apparently, but I am genuinely confused - I get the clutter point, but how is a kettle on a stove simpler? The simplicity of either is pretty similar.
Has anyone else tried to read Rebecca West’s Black Lamb and Grey Falcon? My god what a slog. Impossibly slow, excessively long and notably dated. She’s right about Montenegrins tho. They are beautiful people
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Are the differences between the southern states and northern states in the US greater than the differences between Scotland and England?
No, that would be just a question of granularity. Outside the Chicago metropolitan area Illinois is very red , similarly Upstate New York, and the opposite in Kentucky or Georgia.
It is much more like the English divide between cities and shires, when the USA is looked at at county level.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan coming in for a hell of a lot of criticism during Kit Malthouse statement on Met going into special measures. Calls for him to resign his position and for the Gov to remove his powers over policing in London...
If I need to heat water for tea (or anything else), I use my old microwave. Which, with just a little practice, works fine for that purpose. (Decades ago, I did use a kettle on a stove, but the microwave is faster and uses less electricity.)
Is this a parody? As I'd assumed the tendency of people in American TV programmes to boil a kettle on a stove was just tv anachronism (it only bugs me when the character is British).
Personally would find a separate device for boiling water unhelpful clutter; when I want to boil some water (say for hot chocolate or VERY occasionally tea) a kettle on the stove is simpler.
And on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific) I am NOT alone.
Indeed not apparently, but I am genuinely confused - I get the clutter point, but how is a kettle on a stove simpler? The simplicity of either is pretty similar.
Isn't the problem that the low voltage US domestic supply makes electric kettles painfully slow to the boil, while the higher wattage running a cooker boils at reasonable speed?
Is this a parody? As I'd assumed the tendency of people in American TV programmes to boil a kettle on a stove was just tv anachronism (it only bugs me when the character is British).
Not an anachronism, just different circumstances. Plug-in electric kettles of the type ubiquitous in Britain are much less useful in the US because their 110v electric supply means the kettle takes much longer to boil than in countries with a 230/240v system. Cookers are on their own high-power circuit, separate from normal sockets, so they can boil water much quicker than a kettle.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
They all however voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and most of them were also part of the Old Confederacy
KY, MO and WV were all Union states, indeed WV split away from VA to do so.
Is this a parody? As I'd assumed the tendency of people in American TV programmes to boil a kettle on a stove was just tv anachronism (it only bugs me when the character is British).
I'll spare people the bother of explaining now to me why the US has a much lower voltage electricity supply. That it undermines kettle usage is terrible enough whatever the reason for it, poor devils.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Are the differences between the southern states and northern states in the US greater than the differences between Scotland and England?
No, that would be just a question of granularity. Outside the Chicago metropolitan area Illinois is very red , similarly Upstate New York, and the opposite in Kentucky or Georgia.
It is much more like the English divide between cities and shires, when the USA is looked at at county level.
To an extent but compare for example the county vote in Massachussetts in 2020 to Louisiana. Every county in the former blue, 80% of counties in the latter red
Are the differences between the southern states and northern states in the US greater than the differences between Scotland and England?
No, that would be just a question of granularity. Outside the Chicago metropolitan area Illinois is very red , similarly Upstate New York, and the opposite in Kentucky or Georgia.
It is much more like the English divide between cities and shires, when the USA is looked at at county level.
To an extent but compare for example the county vote in Massachussetts in 2020 to Louisiana. Every county in the former blue, 80% of counties in the latter red
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Not half.
Strikes me this is like a Beckett signing Corbyn nomination papers moment.
If I need to heat water for tea (or anything else), I use my old microwave. Which, with just a little practice, works fine for that purpose. (Decades ago, I did use a kettle on a stove, but the microwave is faster and uses less electricity.)
Most Americans make coffee in coffee makers.
But what if you want boiling water fast, for boiling veg, or whatever? Or some boiling water in a bubbling recipe? With a kettle you’ve got a jug with 2 litres of 100C water, in seconds
A microwave and a kettle are the two indispensable things on a kitchen counter. Coffee machine close behind. Toaster is nice-to-have
I'll spare people the bother of explaining now to me why the US has a much lower voltage electricity supply. That it undermines kettle usage is terrible enough whatever the reason for it, poor devils.
What I found bizarre in NZ in 1990 was that they only had electric kettles (jugs in Kiwi language) that didn't turn themself off, and toasters that didn't eject. I burnt a lot of toast and kettle elements in my year there.
Comments
Norrie Knoll this year then
The cash donation accepted by the Prince of Wales for his charity would not happen now, a royal source says.
"That was then, this is now," the source said, following reports Prince Charles had accepted around £2.5m in cash in a suitcase and carrier bags.
"It was passed immediately to his charity and it was his charity who decided to accept the money," said the senior royal source...
The Sunday Times had reported that the donations, in three payments, had been made to the Prince of Wales's Charitable Fund between 2011 and 2015
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61984112
It was a different time you guys, 2015 was like the dark ages.
(Before Covid)
Are you saying for Fermangh voted for the Republic but was compelled to be within Northern Ireland? Anyway I'm off; Mrs Cole is calling me for my evening meal. Have fun everyone
When Murray himself was doing well early in his career, the BBC were always still going on about Henman, despite by then Murray clearly being the better player. If Knoll becomes a great player in a decades time no doubt they'll still be talking about him when he's past his time rather than whichever good new player has come on the stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Boundary_Commission
"The provisional border in 1922 was that which the Government of Ireland Act 1920 made between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Most Irish nationalists hoped for a considerable transfer of land to the Free State, on the basis that most border areas had nationalist majorities. However, the Commission recommended relatively small transfers, and in both directions. This was leaked to The Morning Post in 1925, causing protests from both unionists and nationalists.
In order to avoid the possibility of further disputes, the British, Free State, and Northern Ireland governments agreed to suppress the overall report, and on 3 December 1925, instead of any changes being made, the existing border was confirmed by W. T. Cosgrave for the Free State, Sir James Craig for Northern Ireland, and Stanley Baldwin for the British government, as part of a wider agreement which included a resolution of outstanding financial disagreements. This was then ratified by their three parliaments. The commission's report was not published until 1969."
More States’ rights, means that decisions on moral issues are made at the community level, rather than the national level.
Also believe it's as wrong to criticize a young woman for wearing jewelry makes as much sense, as when my Daddy Dearest used to criticize yours truly for not getting a haircut, back in the day when I still had hair to cut!
Hopefully Watson, Dart or Boulter can get into week 2 for the women.
I find watching tennis pretty boring (unless John McEnroe is commentating) and I'm interested in Murray's fate.
Norrie? Who TF cares.
I think the feeling with Emma R is that she has done brilliantly but is far from the finished product and there is a sense that she is being told what to do and wear by IMG. Players get a tonne of money for appearing in even the early rounds of major tennis tournaments and good luck to them all but there is something about the girl next door (copyright IMG) appearing in jewelry which costs more than the average wage.
Maybe the smart move for the Tories in those circumstances would be to offer a confidence and supply deal to Labour.
PLUS fact that many non-unionists voted for candidates of the Irish Parliamentary Party (formerly predominant in nationalist Ireland since Parnell's day) and committed to Home Rule within United Kingdom.
ALSO note that many Irish voters had zero opportunity to cast a vote at all in this election, because nearly a quarter of Irish parliamentary seats (25 of 105) were UNCONTESTED and won by acclamation by SF. (In six other seats there was no Unionist standing.)
Two of the totally uncontested states were in Cavan, a part of Ulster NOT included in future Northern Ireland.
I am not condoning the rioters actions. I am saying it was a riot (at best), a terror attack at worst. That's enough, without trying to gussy it up as a coup because 'it's Trump'.
Norrie = good player but the maximum expectation and achievement for him in a grand slam will never be more than QF
There's the difference.
Lots of options for nationalities when he isn’t winning.
"Some believed that, with 2022 looking tough for Democrats, Republicans could take the governor’s mansion in deep blue Illinois.
That got a lot more difficult after Tuesday’s Republican primary. Voters nominated conservative firebrand state Sen. Darren Bailey over a more traditional Republican candidate to take on Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) in November. Democrats are thrilled about this. Bailey wants to ban abortion in the state (except in cases where the woman’s life is in danger) and has described Chicago as “a crime-ridden, corrupt, dysfunctional hellhole.” He once tried to eject the city from the state, and he has former president Donald Trump’s endorsement.
Also, this is one instance where meddling by the other party appeared to pay off. The Democratic Governors Association and Pritzker poured money into the Republican primary to try to elevate Bailey and sink his rival, Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin."
This is unfortunate because Illinois is in serious trouble. Even after recent increases, it still has the lowest bond ratings of any state.
Barack Obama chose not to retire in his adopted home -- which should tell you something.
Why should a gay American pay federal taxes when the federal government won't uphold their rights across the whole country?
Or if you are an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, never let facts get in the way of anything.
Decisions on moral issues should be on an individual basis, not enforced by any community.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
Barrett: 52-48
Kavanaugh: 50-48
Gorsuch: 54-45
Kagan: 63-37
Sotomayor: 68-31
Alito: 58-42
Breyer: 87-9
Ginsburg: 96-3
Thomas: 52-48
Souter: 90-9
Kennedy: 97-0
Scalia: 98-0
O'Connor: 99-0
Stevens: 98-0
Rehnquist: 68-26
Powell Jr: 89-1
Blackmun: 94-0
Marshall: 69-11
Fortas: Acclamation
Goldberg: Acclamation
White: Acclamation
Stewart: 70-17
Whittaker: Acclamation
Brennan Jr: Acclamation
Harlan: 71-11
Minton: 48-16
Clark: 73-8
Burton: Acclamation
Looks like there was a brief period of near unanimity in confirmations, which broke down after Thomas squeaked through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
There is a further complication. Progressives want a society in which we are free to live in a society that has gay marriage. By virtue of this an individual is not free to live in a society that doesn't have gay marriage.
This may be unavoidable, but we should not over claim for what progressivism means. It is also highly restrictive. But this is not noticed because it is assumed that those who object to the restrictions don't count.
One thing carrying an adidas endorsement on a tennis racquet. Or for that matter a Tiffany’s endorsement off court. But a Tiffany’s endorsement on court seems a bit much when she still has much to prove.
In New Poll, 89% of Ukrainians Reject Ceding Land to Reach Peace With Russia
Ukrainians back Zelensky’s position that peace talks can’t grant Russia land it has seized, WSJ-NORC poll finds
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-new-poll-89-of-ukrainians-reject-ceding-land-to-reach-peace-with-russia-11656504002?mod=e2tw
Usual (and unusual) caveats apply...
I checked Pew out of interest. Places like Florida (24% evangelical), Louisiana (27%), Georgia (38%). See:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/georgia/
These states are ≈ 70 - 80% christian, but that's not really full fat fundamentalism is it?
Most religious people globally are not Anglican liberals
The New York Times, 2022
https://twitter.com/stefanroberts/status/1542077697542836225
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-same-sex-marriage/by/state/
I didn't include Florida though as it is more a swing state, Christian fundamentalist in the North but liberal in Miami and further south
Clearly they were too busy tied up with getting that man to the moon.
(mrs tres chips in, we don't drink tea, why would we need it)
This is the abortion problem
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
I'm not opposing things. Just pointing out the limitations of progressive approaches. They are restrictive.
Coincidence? I think not.
Culturally however there is a huge difference between most of the Southern US states and the North East and West coast US states
And on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific) I am NOT alone.
Probably as Ian What's-His-Number implies, because were just too stupid to properly boil water.
https://twitter.com/lorrainemking/status/1542109648253292544
Comres UK poll out tonight in the independant
Comres Scotland indy and holyrood tomorrow morning
Will the 11 point lead hold??
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
It is much more like the English divide between cities and shires, when the USA is looked at at county level.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan coming in for a hell of a lot of criticism during Kit Malthouse statement on Met going into special measures. Calls for him to resign his position and for the Gov to remove his powers over policing in London...
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1542129323414528000?t=xexlFyJRWVRlYAfWllWqtA&s=19
Most Americans make coffee in coffee makers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Louisiana
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/26/bulgaria-migrants-brutally-pushed-back-turkish-border
Strikes me this is like a Beckett signing Corbyn nomination papers moment.
A microwave and a kettle are the two indispensable things on a kitchen counter. Coffee machine close behind. Toaster is nice-to-have