I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.
How do they fail?
Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
Bobo Bear going down
Oh Dear How sad Never mind.
Although shes closed in from 6k down to 2500 with 9% left to count. Its very tight
Just looking on Wiki last time out just under 420,000 people voted in the district.
Mind you even if they lose this they should win the house.
with est. 95% plus of expected statewide vote counted; * incumbent
for US SENATOR Jerry Moran* Rep 587,376 60.5% Mark Holland Dem 355,425 36.6% David Graham Lib 28,370 +2.9% Total counted 971,171 margin Dem versus Rep -231,951 -23.9%
for GOVERNOR Laura Kelly* Dem 479,875 49.2% Derek Schmidt Rep 465,620 +47.7% Dennis Pyle Ind 19,753 +2.0% Seth Cordell Lib 10,659 +1.1% Total counted 975,907 margin Dem versus Rep +14.255 +1.5%
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Indeed.
Not so many years ago, abortion was considered an evil act. A doctor who performed one was an outcast. And a criminal. The right of the foetus to life was sacred and overarching.
“Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions”
Laws are simply the sum of what society, at a point in time, collectively considered the limits of behaviour.
The guardianship of rights is among the people. You can’t impose Goodness in a democracy via unchangeable laws.
And as we have seen, attempting to use constitutionalism to make a country progressive fails. In this case power passed to those interpreting the laws. So the Supreme Court became a very undemocratic legislative body.
I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.
How do they fail?
Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
I think the market is now overcorrecting to anything good for the Dems and slow to revise its position when it looks like the Republicans might actually do just well enough.
I'm too knackered but I might be tempted at very small bets with the Senate R majority. NV is probably slight Laxalt. I saw Lake was winning 70-30 on the ED vote in Maricopa but have no idea what the split will be. GA is a toss-up.
I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.
How do they fail?
Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
I think the market is now overcorrecting to anything good for the Dems and slow to revise its position when it looks like the Republicans might actually do just well enough.
Yesterday the most popular option on Betfair was 54 seats. Now it's 49. Neither seem/seemed right.
I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.
How do they fail?
Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
I think the market is now overcorrecting to anything good for the Dems and slow to revise its position when it looks like the Republicans might actually do just well enough.
I'm too knackered but I might be tempted at very small bets with the Senate R majority. NV is probably slight Laxalt. I saw Lake was winning 70-30 on the ED vote in Maricopa but have no idea what the split will be. GA is a toss-up.
I've had a go.
Why the fuck not. Up on Truss and Sunak so may as well.
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
for ATTORNEY GENERAL Kris Kobach Rep 493,775 51.2% Chris Mann Dem 471,076 48.8% Total counted 964,851 margin Dem versus Rep -22,699 -3.5%
for SECRETARY of STATE Scott Schwab* Rep 566,127 58.8% Jeanna Repass Dem 369,722 38.4% Cullene Lang Lib 26,868 +2.8% Total counted 962,717 margin Dem versus Rep -196,405 -20.4%
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.
Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the baby.
But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.
Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
No.
Not until birth.
Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.
The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.
It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
I have no idea about the emotion or physical aspect but in my example a happy couple decided to have a baby and then in week 38 they fell out and she wants an abortion.
Does the past relationship, implicit contract, and viability of the baby with someone willing to look after it have no influence on the situation?
Yeah, sorry, I reacted to Bart's reply without really considering your specific scenario. I think I find it a bit diffiicult to imagine tbh - why does the falling out between parents make the mother want an abortion? Is it because she doesn't want to bring the baby up alone? If so she can give birth and hand responsibility to the willing father. It would seem spiteful in the extreme (as well as very damaging to her body) to abort in that case.
It just doesn't seem like a case that would happen in the real world. Certainly not often enough to make policy based on it.
Precisely. I can't take the argument seriously, its an absurd hypothetical and absurd hypotheticals are not how to make decisions.
The simple reality is that at 38 weeks an expectant mother-to-be has bonded with what she has felt kicking in her tummy for months by that point. She is simply not going to flippantly choose to terminate based upon a falling out with a man, and its frankly bordering on completely preposterous to suggest it.
If a woman is in such a seriously awful position for one reason or another that she comes to that weighty decision, then its not for me or any other man to be getting involved, except to offer help and support. I put my trust in her to make the right decision.
Will be interesting to see whether we have a cold winter, what with the price of gas.
You can't even summarise a tweet right. The interesting thing about this is remanded IN CUSTODY. Look that up, learn the difference from remanded on bail, then do a post pretending you knew all along, with some of your splendid emojis in it.
Your entire posting strategy is observing what the grown ups do, and copying without understanding. Cargo cult (google that) posting. In this instance you are trying to do a @Scott_xP. Harder than it looks.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
It’s a question of rights, not just somewhere in the middle. See my answer to @Cookie
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Indeed.
Not so many years ago, abortion was considered an evil act. A doctor who performed one was an outcast. And a criminal. The right of the foetus to life was sacred and overarching.
“Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions”
Laws are simply the sum of what society, at a point in time, collectively considered the limits of behaviour.
The guardianship of rights is among the people. You can’t impose Goodness in a democracy via unchangeable laws.
And as we have seen, attempting to use constitutionalism to make a country progressive fails. In this case power passed to those interpreting the laws. So the Supreme Court became a very undemocratic legislative body.
Worse than the House of Lords, by any measure.
You must be joking - abortion was not criminalised because of rights accruing to the foetus, otherwise women would have been given welfare upon pregnancy. It was about Christian and patriarchal values - own it!
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.
Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the baby.
But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.
Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
No.
Not until birth.
Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.
The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.
It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
I have no idea about the emotion or physical aspect but in my example a happy couple decided to have a baby and then in week 38 they fell out and she wants an abortion.
Does the past relationship, implicit contract, and viability of the baby with someone willing to look after it have no influence on the situation?
Yeah, sorry, I reacted to Bart's reply without really considering your specific scenario. I think I find it a bit diffiicult to imagine tbh - why does the falling out between parents make the mother want an abortion? Is it because she doesn't want to bring the baby up alone? If so she can give birth and hand responsibility to the willing father. It would seem spiteful in the extreme (as well as very damaging to her body) to abort in that case.
It just doesn't seem like a case that would happen in the real world. Certainly not often enough to make policy based on it.
Precisely. I can't take the argument seriously, its an absurd hypothetical and absurd hypotheticals are not how to make decisions.
The simple reality is that at 38 weeks an expectant mother-to-be has bonded with what she has felt kicking in her tummy for months by that point. She is simply not going to flippantly choose to terminate based upon a falling out with a man, and its frankly bordering on completely preposterous to suggest it.
If a woman is in such a seriously awful position for one reason or another that she comes to that weighty decision, then its not for me or any other man to be getting involved, except to offer help and support. I put my trust in her to make the right decision.
I put my trust in the fuhrer to make the right decision about the gypsies.
Statements of this kind are not just weak moral arguments, they have no moral content at all.
The winter snow is beginning to accumulate, thanks to a series of storms hitting the area. My favorite views in that list are Mountain (looking north), Tatoosh (looking south, often with an added decorative lens flare) and, when possible, Camp Muir (looking south from the mountain). The first two are at the main visitor center at about 5400 feet, the third at a climber's hut at about 10,000 feet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Washington
By the way, introductory physics teachers can find a fun example for their students by looking at the way the mountain changes colors early in the morning.
(The name of the mountain, like St. Helens near by, will be familiar to those who know British naval history.)
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
HOWEVER note that suburban voters - who are favoring Warnock over Walker in the 2022 general, just as they favored Warnock and Ossoff in 2020 general - are MORE likely to vote than urban OR rural voters.
Whatever Trump does or doesn't do in 2022 runoff, above-average suburban turnout will still help the Rev. Dr. Sen.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
Survival at 22-23 weeks is low, and the survivors often have permanent damage, often neurological.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
Survival at 22-23 weeks is low, and the survivors often have permanent damage, often neurological.
I know that, you know that, @StillWaters knows that and everyone else in the conversation knows that too.
Yet they turn a blind eye to that inconvenient fact and bang on about "viability" when it suits their agenda.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Indeed.
Not so many years ago, abortion was considered an evil act. A doctor who performed one was an outcast. And a criminal. The right of the foetus to life was sacred and overarching.
“Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions”
Laws are simply the sum of what society, at a point in time, collectively considered the limits of behaviour.
The guardianship of rights is among the people. You can’t impose Goodness in a democracy via unchangeable laws.
And as we have seen, attempting to use constitutionalism to make a country progressive fails. In this case power passed to those interpreting the laws. So the Supreme Court became a very undemocratic legislative body.
Worse than the House of Lords, by any measure.
You must be joking - abortion was not criminalised because of rights accruing to the foetus, otherwise women would have been given welfare upon pregnancy. It was about Christian and patriarchal values - own it!
I was pointing out that the definitions of rights and which rights are overriden by other rights, changes.
The re-criminalisation of abortion in the US is indeed a BackToThePast nonsense,
Trying to write down a perfect list of rights is a fools errand. Trying to set such a list in stone is a disaster.
If you want rights and want to keep them, a law will not do more than express the will of the majority around you. The real source of your rights is in your fellow humans.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
I have a close relative, born at 22 and a bit weeks.
Reality makes an interesting contrast to theory.
Yet I support the 24 week limit. The real world is messy like that. It should be full of human compromises.
Unlike the rest of this thread, On Topic. Kind of. I appreciate those in PBs Gamebook, Boards and Miniatures Club are unlikely to have come across it, but there was a seventies HC called Another Month in Georgia. Starring Lizzy Daze, Rishi Maxim, Keith Stroker, and featuring Suella Lottatang as the eponymous Georgia. What plot there was, as I recall, revolved around being in and out of Georgia, sometimes half way up Carolina, or all the way up in Virginia, over the course of about a month; though all outdoor sequences (both of them) were filmed in California.
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
Disagree, because I think Walker only did as well as he did because Kemp was on the ticket. People went out to vote for the Governor, and voted for Walker as well.
Imelda Staunton has exceeded my expectations. She sounds like and looks like The Queen. Great acting. Top marks.
Elizabeth Debicki is even better. She is Princess Diana, in almost every way. It's like she's come back to life.
Jonathan Pryce is an amazing thespian, a superb actor, but crap in this. Really crap. He's just a grumpy Jonathan Pryce in a cardigan. Doesn't look like him, sound like him or act like him. Doesn't work at all.
Dominic West looks nothing like Charles. Mannerisms OK but he is an actor. Bare pass. Queen Mother just seems to be an old lady. Princess Anne is ok.
Cinematography and sets are, of course, gorgeous. Plotline and script complete bollocks. Stretches belief more than ever.
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
Disagree, because I think Walker only did as well as he did because Kemp was on the ticket. People went out to vote for the Governor, and voted for Walker as well.
I think this time round they pull in RDS to gee up the vote and Trump stays out of the picture. Tonight has been humiliating for him and to risk a second humiliation in GA would be too much. In that case, I'd expect the GOP establishment to align more firmly behind Walker, especially given the race's importance.
Increasingly thinking AZ could end up being a major legal battle
He looks unmanicured unlike most Americans standing for office
Ars est celare artem. That headshave plus sculpted beard plus NINE tattoos take more grooming than most of us spend in a lifetime on manicures.
He is 6'8" btw, which is cool, no question.
I remember being rather surprised by the BBC's usually rather staid descriptions terming Fetterman as 'a hulking 6ft 8in'
In 2013, during Mr Fetterman's second term as mayor of Braddock, a town near Pittsburgh, he pursued an innocent black jogger who he wrongly thought had been firing a gun near his home.
Mr Fetterman, who is a hulking 6ft 8in and was armed with a shotgun during the confrontation, has refused to apologise for the incident.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
As if writing for an audience of under-fives, the BBC explains that Gavin Williamson
"wasn't in charge of any specific department. Instead, he was Minister of State (Minister without Portfolio). That means that instead of being in charge of something like defence or health, he was more of a general contributor to the running of government."
Actually he oversaw the Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund – a cross-government body that finds solutions to complex national security challenges and reports to the Foreign Policy and Security Council, formerly known as the National Security Council. He was without portfolio in name only.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
I have a close relative, born at 22 and a bit weeks.
Reality makes an interesting contrast to theory.
Yet I support the 24 week limit. The real world is messy like that. It should be full of human compromises.
I have, in my extended family, an almost identical situation.
IVF, 22-23 weeks, twins, now in their mid teens, one with very serious developmental delays (no speech, but can work his way around YouTube on an iPad and find children’s programmes that he likes) - the other, doing his GCSEs with only minor issues.
The abortion issue simply ain’t simple. Those trying to distil the the issue to fundamental rights aren’t seriously engaging with the issue. These people poison the debate.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
Disagree, because I think Walker only did as well as he did because Kemp was on the ticket. People went out to vote for the Governor, and voted for Walker as well.
I think this time round they pull in RDS to gee up the vote and Trump stays out of the picture. Tonight has been humiliating for him and to risk a second humiliation in GA would be too much. In that case, I'd expect the GOP establishment to align more firmly behind Walker, especially given the race's importance.
Increasingly thinking AZ could end up being a major legal battle
That's an interesting idea re Georgia, but I'd still make the Dems the favourites there - especially given Warnock's suburban outperformance.
As if writing for an audience of under-fives, the BBC explains that Gavin Williamson
"wasn't in charge of any specific department. Instead, he was Minister of State (Minister without Portfolio). That means that instead of being in charge of something like defence or health, he was more of a general contributor to the running of government."
Actually he oversaw the Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund – a cross-government body that finds solutions to complex national security challenges and reports to the National Security Council. He was without portfolio in name only.
Given what he was to oversee was only announced on the day he later resigned (or else late the day before), I think they can be forgiven in this instance for being general, since what a Minister without Portfolio does is clearly variable and even avid politics watchers will be uncertain, and he cannot have made a start on it since it was only just announced so even claiming he was a general contributor is stretching it.
He looks unmanicured unlike most Americans standing for office
Ars est celare artem. That headshave plus sculpted beard plus NINE tattoos take more grooming than most of us spend in a lifetime on manicures.
He is 6'8" btw, which is cool, no question.
I remember being rather surprised by the BBC's usually rather staid descriptions terming Fetterman as 'a hulking 6ft 8in'
In 2013, during Mr Fetterman's second term as mayor of Braddock, a town near Pittsburgh, he pursued an innocent black jogger who he wrongly thought had been firing a gun near his home.
Mr Fetterman, who is a hulking 6ft 8in and was armed with a shotgun during the confrontation, has refused to apologise for the incident.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Some of them are retirement age. Would you stop their state pension ?
What if they have taken time off work to protest ?
What about those who are self employed ?
We have laws already to deal with them. Let it take its course.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
You sure? They can be working full time and taking leave - and believe in their cause.
You're just othering them and missing their likely nature and motivations.
Imelda Staunton has exceeded my expectations. She sounds like and looks like The Queen. Great acting. Top marks.
Elizabeth Debicki is even better. She is Princess Diana, in almost every way. It's like she's come back to life.
Jonathan Pryce is an amazing thespian, a superb actor, but crap in this. Really crap. He's just a grumpy Jonathan Pryce in a cardigan. Doesn't look like him, sound like him or act like him. Doesn't work at all.
Dominic West looks nothing like Charles. Mannerisms OK but he is an actor. Bare pass. Queen Mother just seems to be an old lady. Princess Anne is ok.
Cinematography and sets are, of course, gorgeous. Plotline and script complete bollocks. Stretches belief more than ever.
Here endeth the Royale royal review.
I don’t know if I’ll bother watching this series. Enjoyed the earlier ones up until the 80s which really fumbled Thatcher as a character (not in a way that I felt was biased, more just wasn’t spot on with its characterisation or portrayal). As many have said, maybe it is because as things get closer to living memory for the majority, you can spot the flaws more easily.
I did think that the earlier series balanced the family melodrama with historical context much better than the 80s series though which went heavy on the Charles/Diana angle (yawn) and although I haven’t watched the new one I suspect it will be similar?
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze, should they happen to be on benefits.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
I have a close relative, born at 22 and a bit weeks.
Reality makes an interesting contrast to theory.
Yet I support the 24 week limit. The real world is messy like that. It should be full of human compromises.
I have, in my extended family, an almost identical situation.
IVF, 22-23 weeks, twins, now in their mid teens, one with very serious developmental delays (no speech, but can work his way around YouTube on an iPad and find children’s programmes that he likes) - the other, doing his GCSEs with only minor issues.
The abortion issue simply ain’t simple. Those trying to distil the the issue to fundamental rights aren’t seriously engaging with the issue. These people poison the debate.
Anyone who dismisses anyone who disagrees with them is poisoning the debate.
I'm not doing that, you are.
I have my own opinion, but respect the right of others to hold theirs. You aren't worried about "poisoning the debate", you want to brook no debate. For you its your way, and your way alone, or people are "not serious".
Everyone in this discussion is being serious, well almost everyone, but people can hold opinions other than your own.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Your constant urge to give back, through the tax system, what this country gave to your hard working immigrant Hindu parents, is an inspiration to all of us. Save a bit for yourself, though.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Perhaps it is an unfair stereotype in both directions, but without knowing any silver spoon types personally the people on benefits I've known have not really been the protesting in that way type. There must be some, but it'd be fun to know the breakdown. Sadly, without all being arrested and reported on I guess we cannot be sure.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Give them problems to worry about. £200k fines on their trust funds.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Get them in heavy debt too. Then they won't want to lose their jobs because their children might starve. And if they protest at the weekend or in the evening, make them do two full-time jobs.
It's possible that the Democrats will gain a House seat in Washington state, thanks to the orange man. Right now, in the 3rd district, Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is leading Trumpista Republican Joe Kent 53-47, with 65 percent of the votes counted. (I expect an update late this afternoon, and think it nearly certain tht we will know the winner for sure by the end of this week.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington's_3rd_congressional_district
Kent narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler (R), one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Back in June FiveThirtyEight rated the district an almost certain Republican hold. But that was before the August primary.
As if writing for an audience of under-fives, the BBC explains that Gavin Williamson
"wasn't in charge of any specific department. Instead, he was Minister of State (Minister without Portfolio). That means that instead of being in charge of something like defence or health, he was more of a general contributor to the running of government."
Actually he oversaw the Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund – a cross-government body that finds solutions to complex national security challenges and reports to the National Security Council. He was without portfolio in name only.
Given what he was to oversee was only announced on the day he later resigned (or else late the day before), I think they can be forgiven in this instance for being general, since what a Minister without Portfolio does is clearly variable and even avid politics watchers will be uncertain, and he cannot have made a start on it since it was only just announced so even claiming he was a general contributor is stretching it.
It pains the pedant in me every single time a “Minister without Portfolio” is given a portfolio.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
I have a close relative, born at 22 and a bit weeks.
Reality makes an interesting contrast to theory.
Yet I support the 24 week limit. The real world is messy like that. It should be full of human compromises.
I have, in my extended family, an almost identical situation.
IVF, 22-23 weeks, twins, now in their mid teens, one with very serious developmental delays (no speech, but can work his way around YouTube on an iPad and find children’s programmes that he likes) - the other, doing his GCSEs with only minor issues.
The abortion issue simply ain’t simple. Those trying to distil the the issue to fundamental rights aren’t seriously engaging with the issue. These people poison the debate.
Anyone who dismisses anyone who disagrees with them is poisoning the debate.
I'm not doing that, you are.
I have my own opinion, but respect the right of others to hold theirs. You aren't worried about "poisoning the debate", you want to brook no debate. For you its your way, and your way alone, or people are "not serious".
Everyone in this discussion is being serious, well almost everyone, but people can hold opinions other than your own.
No they aren't. At least, you aren't. Your "i personally feel that..." position has no moral content at all.
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
Certainly if I were Raphael Warnock I would be wanting the GOO to win in NV so that control of the senate came down to the runoff. Much more likely to motivate his supporters.
He looks unmanicured unlike most Americans standing for office
Ars est celare artem. That headshave plus sculpted beard plus NINE tattoos take more grooming than most of us spend in a lifetime on manicures.
He is 6'8" btw, which is cool, no question.
I remember being rather surprised by the BBC's usually rather staid descriptions terming Fetterman as 'a hulking 6ft 8in'
In 2013, during Mr Fetterman's second term as mayor of Braddock, a town near Pittsburgh, he pursued an innocent black jogger who he wrongly thought had been firing a gun near his home.
Mr Fetterman, who is a hulking 6ft 8in and was armed with a shotgun during the confrontation, has refused to apologise for the incident.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.
I would say the Reps should be favourite in Georgia. 1) the Libertarian votes are more likely to go Republican 2) The Republicans brought in the runoff rule as it is generally harder for the Dems to get their voters out a second time (obviously this didn't work last time as Trump queered the pitch for the Reps with al the steal talk)
Certainly if I were Raphael Warnock I would be wanting the GOO to win in NV so that control of the senate came down to the runoff. Much more likely to motivate his supporters.
Completely agree. Assuming Dems win AZ, I’d say 50-50 senate is pretty much value whatever happens in NV.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Give them problems to worry about. £200k fines on their trust funds.
So every time some rich banker speeds ín his posh car, we do him for £20,000 fine for the first offence?
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Give them problems to worry about. £200k fines on their trust funds.
I think they should be fined more than what you earn in 3 months, surely? Either they are rich and can afford to pay, or they are poor and fuck 'em.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Get them in heavy debt too. Then they won't want to lose their jobs because their children might starve. And if they protest at the weekend or in the evening, make them do two full-time jobs.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Get them in heavy debt too. Then they won't want to lose their jobs because their children might starve. And if they protest at the weekend or in the evening, make them do two full-time jobs.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Give them problems to worry about. £200k fines on their trust funds.
So every time some rich banker speeds ín his posh car, we do him for £20,000 fine for the first offence?
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Total counted so far is 578k. If the 596k is correct then there are far fewer left to count than most sources are saying.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Total counted so far is 578k. If the 596k is correct then there are far fewer left to count than most sources are saying.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Total counted so far is 578k. If the 596k is correct then there are far fewer left to count than most sources are saying.
I concluded during the 2020 election that every source claiming to know what votes were left to come in, and of what type, was talking bollocks. I have yet to change my mind.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Total counted so far is 578k. If the 596k is correct then there are far fewer left to count than most sources are saying.
The state has flipped.
I flipping called it.
Republicans now need only 1 of Georgia or Arizona to seize both houses.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
How many of these protestors are on benefits?
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
Give them problems to worry about. £200k fines on their trust funds.
So every time some rich banker speeds ín his posh car, we do him for £20,000 fine for the first offence?
Actually I can get behind that one…..
Was that not tried twenty years ago? Sliding scale of fines? I seem to recall a huge fine for a discarded apple core.
He looks unmanicured unlike most Americans standing for office
Ars est celare artem. That headshave plus sculpted beard plus NINE tattoos take more grooming than most of us spend in a lifetime on manicures.
He is 6'8" btw, which is cool, no question.
I remember being rather surprised by the BBC's usually rather staid descriptions terming Fetterman as 'a hulking 6ft 8in'
In 2013, during Mr Fetterman's second term as mayor of Braddock, a town near Pittsburgh, he pursued an innocent black jogger who he wrongly thought had been firing a gun near his home.
Mr Fetterman, who is a hulking 6ft 8in and was armed with a shotgun during the confrontation, has refused to apologise for the incident.
I'd have thought an objective report would have omitted "innocent" and "wrongly" and probably "jogger," and certainly "black."
That'd leave it at 'he pursued an who he thought'.
I don't think the wrongly bit is unobjective, so long as it had since been established he was, indeed, wrong.
Yeah, ykwim: he pursued a man who he thought...
There was some Americans last year who murdered a jogger who had jogged through a half-constructed newbuild house. Richly deserved conviction, natch, but in 40 years of jogging I have never wandered off track like that.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
I’m not sure that all of those positions are justifiable
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
You go with that, I go with birth.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
I have a close relative, born at 22 and a bit weeks.
Reality makes an interesting contrast to theory.
Yet I support the 24 week limit. The real world is messy like that. It should be full of human compromises.
I have, in my extended family, an almost identical situation.
IVF, 22-23 weeks, twins, now in their mid teens, one with very serious developmental delays (no speech, but can work his way around YouTube on an iPad and find children’s programmes that he likes) - the other, doing his GCSEs with only minor issues.
The abortion issue simply ain’t simple. Those trying to distil the the issue to fundamental rights aren’t seriously engaging with the issue. These people poison the debate.
Personally, I am quite content with current laws and practice. Let sleeping dogs lie, as we dont need to copy every bit of American political toxicity.
90%+ of abortions are first trimester, and many of the late ones because of serious foetal abnormalities, or complex social issues like concealed pregnancy.
Fox jr2 had several other embryos frozen with him that we never implanted. They were allowed to defrost when the storage licence ran out (limited to 5 years as I recall). Anything fertility related runs into ethical dilemmas.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
Well if they're remanded without bail for 2 years pending a prosecution then they won't be committing any more offences in that time. 😉
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Absolutely agree, so long as we also agree that those consequences are whatever they are in the statute book, as applied by a JP or Judge following a proper process.
I present the London riots (and the fact that this lot were remanded in custody) as evidence that the courts “get it”.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
Well if they're remanded without bail for 2 years pending a prosecution then they won't be committing any more offences in that time. 😉
It's a bit off to whine about them being on the dole and then demand that they have free board and lodgings in the Dartmoor Britannia at HM, read your and mine, expence for 2 years.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Absolutely agree, so long as we also agree that those consequences are whatever they are in the statute book, as applied by a JP or Judge following a proper process.
I present the London riots (and the fact that this lot were remanded in custody) as evidence that the courts “get it”.
Yes, totally. And justice delayed is justice denied etc.
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
Well if they're remanded without bail for 2 years pending a prosecution then they won't be committing any more offences in that time. 😉
Also true if every single person in the country were remanded without bail for 2 years. Are you sure you have completely mastered this "libertarian" thing?
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Don't postal votes posted on the day need to be counted, and Saturday is the cut off? Hence they cannot yet know the turnout?
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Total counted so far is 578k. If the 596k is correct then there are far fewer left to count than most sources are saying.
There are tens of thousands more votes to count. THey literally have at least 30,000 more to count today alone. And that's without cracking open the Drop Boxes (300 drop boxes)
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
Well if they're remanded without bail for 2 years pending a prosecution then they won't be committing any more offences in that time. 😉
Also true if every single person in the country were remanded without bail for 2 years. Are you sure you have completely mastered this "libertarian" thing?
They made the fatal error of stopping Barty in his wheels for 5 minutes. Libertarian principles go out of the nearside rear fanlight window.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Get them in heavy debt too. Then they won't want to lose their jobs because their children might starve. And if they protest at the weekend or in the evening, make them do two full-time jobs.
Mike Smithson said: "One of the aspects of American politics that is not always appreciated in the UK is that each of the 50 states have different election laws." (As does DC.) Thank you for saying that.
A historical example: In 1869, Wyoming voted to give women the vote. Other states followed, and finally in 1919 Congress passed the 19th amendment, which was ratified by the necessary number of states on August 18, 1920. But, on this fundamental subject, for decades the states had "different election laws".
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
Well if they're remanded without bail for 2 years pending a prosecution then they won't be committing any more offences in that time. 😉
It's a bit off to whine about them being on the dole and then demand that they have free board and lodgings in the Dartmoor Britannia at HM, read your and mine, expence for 2 years.
That was Max who said they were on the dole.
I suspect that Tarquin and Griselda might find a gap year lodging at His Majesty's pleasure might be slightly less comfortable than what Mummy and Daddy offered. And no Nanny or Waitrose there either.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Total counted so far is 578k. If the 596k is correct then there are far fewer left to count than most sources are saying.
There are tens of thousands more votes to count. THey literally have at least 30,000 more to count today alone. And that's without cracking open the Drop Boxes (300 drop boxes)
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
I think all of these protestors show that our benefits system is too generous and too easy to game. Sanction every single one of their benefits for a minimum of a year. If they can protest, they can work full time jobs.
Christ, I hope you never get anywhere near power!
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze.
Rather disturbing today the number of PB Tories, former or present, who want anyone demonstrating in any way to be drawn and quartered, starved, etc. etc. (and also their families), without any legal process or investigation whatsoever other than the say so of the Met Police or its local equivalents.
Yes. When they speak about “the rule of law” I don’t think they know what it means.
There is frustration about how the police deal with the protests. Sitting in the road blocking cars, the police should move them on as soon as they get there, but seemingly don’t. When the public try to move them the police intervene. It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay. However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
Would help if there was a working justice system, you know, with courts and lawyers and judges and staff, and enough room for everyone, and translators and things.
Well if they're remanded without bail for 2 years pending a prosecution then they won't be committing any more offences in that time. 😉
It's a bit off to whine about them being on the dole and then demand that they have free board and lodgings in the Dartmoor Britannia at HM, read your and mine, expence for 2 years.
That was Max who said they were on the dole.
I suspect that Tarquin and Griselda might find a gap year lodging at His Majesty's pleasure might be slightly less comfortable than what Mummy and Daddy offered. And no Nanny or Waitrose there either.
Sorry - I was speaking in general, but you are quite right, apologies.
I'm also not so sure that the courts would see it your way: the Bristol statue case was very interesting.
Comments
Mind you even if they lose this they should win the house.
with est. 95% plus of expected statewide vote counted; * incumbent
for US SENATOR
Jerry Moran* Rep 587,376 60.5%
Mark Holland Dem 355,425 36.6%
David Graham Lib 28,370 +2.9%
Total counted 971,171
margin Dem versus Rep -231,951 -23.9%
for GOVERNOR
Laura Kelly* Dem 479,875 49.2%
Derek Schmidt Rep 465,620 +47.7%
Dennis Pyle Ind 19,753 +2.0%
Seth Cordell Lib 10,659 +1.1%
Total counted 975,907
margin Dem versus Rep +14.255 +1.5%
Not so many years ago, abortion was considered an evil act. A doctor who performed one was an outcast. And a criminal. The right of the foetus to life was sacred and overarching.
“Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions”
Laws are simply the sum of what society, at a point in time, collectively considered the limits of behaviour.
The guardianship of rights is among the people. You can’t impose Goodness in a democracy via unchangeable laws.
And as we have seen, attempting to use constitutionalism to make a country progressive fails. In this case power passed to those interpreting the laws. So the Supreme Court became a very undemocratic legislative body.
Worse than the House of Lords, by any measure.
Today ‘Animal Rebellion’ protesters joined the protests.
Will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings on the M25.
https://twitter.com/juststop_oil/status/1590082158148091904?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ
Why the fuck not. Up on Truss and Sunak so may as well.
for ATTORNEY GENERAL
Kris Kobach Rep 493,775 51.2%
Chris Mann Dem 471,076 48.8%
Total counted 964,851
margin Dem versus Rep -22,699 -3.5%
for SECRETARY of STATE
Scott Schwab* Rep 566,127 58.8%
Jeanna Repass Dem 369,722 38.4%
Cullene Lang Lib 26,868 +2.8%
Total counted 962,717
margin Dem versus Rep -196,405 -20.4%
Birth states that the unborn child has no rights, even when it is capable of living without the mother
Conception states that the mother has no rights even when the unborn child is completely dependent on her for its survival
Hence I end up with viability (a little earlier than you but that’s really a medical judgement as to precisely when - maybe 22 weeks)
The simple reality is that at 38 weeks an expectant mother-to-be has bonded with what she has felt kicking in her tummy for months by that point. She is simply not going to flippantly choose to terminate based upon a falling out with a man, and its frankly bordering on completely preposterous to suggest it.
If a woman is in such a seriously awful position for one reason or another that she comes to that weighty decision, then its not for me or any other man to be getting involved, except to offer help and support. I put my trust in her to make the right decision.
Will be interesting to see whether we have a cold winter, what with the price of gas.
You can't even summarise a tweet right. The interesting thing about this is remanded IN CUSTODY. Look that up, learn the difference from remanded on bail, then do a post pretending you knew all along, with some of your splendid emojis in it.
Your entire posting strategy is observing what the grown ups do, and copying without understanding. Cargo cult (google that) posting. In this instance you are trying to do a @Scott_xP. Harder than it looks.
When a born child is actually living in its own body and not someone else's, then it gains rights, until then the person whose body it is, is in control.
If 22 weeks is viable, why doesn't the NHS offer inductions at 22 weeks? If a woman wants to make such a weighty decision at 23 weeks that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should not be subject to 4 more months of doing so against her will.
Statements of this kind are not just weak moral arguments, they have no moral content at all.
The winter snow is beginning to accumulate, thanks to a series of storms hitting the area. My favorite views in that list are Mountain (looking north), Tatoosh (looking south, often with an added decorative lens flare) and, when possible, Camp Muir (looking south from the mountain). The first two are at the main visitor center at about 5400 feet, the third at a climber's hut at about 10,000 feet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Washington
By the way, introductory physics teachers can find a fun example for their students by looking at the way the mountain changes colors early in the morning.
(The name of the mountain, like St. Helens near by, will be familiar to those who know British naval history.)
Whatever Trump does or doesn't do in 2022 runoff, above-average suburban turnout will still help the Rev. Dr. Sen.
A bit of stuff to unpack here.
A life outside of politics awaits. I think this will work for him in the long run. He’s also, apparently, done a C4 celeb SAS type show.
https://twitter.com/avasantina/status/1590259110108631042?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ
Yet they turn a blind eye to that inconvenient fact and bang on about "viability" when it suits their agenda.
The re-criminalisation of abortion in the US is indeed a BackToThePast nonsense,
Trying to write down a perfect list of rights is a fools errand. Trying to set such a list in stone is a disaster.
If you want rights and want to keep them, a law will not do more than express the will of the majority around you. The real source of your rights is in your fellow humans.
Reality makes an interesting contrast to theory.
Yet I support the 24 week limit. The real world is messy like that. It should be full of human compromises.
Don’t know if this helps at all.
Your "thoughts" about what will "work for him in the long run" will certainly inform my betting strategy. Respect.
#toostupidtoposthere
Imelda Staunton has exceeded my expectations. She sounds like and looks like The Queen. Great acting. Top marks.
Elizabeth Debicki is even better. She is Princess Diana, in almost every way. It's like she's come back to life.
Jonathan Pryce is an amazing thespian, a superb actor, but crap in this. Really crap. He's just a grumpy Jonathan Pryce in a cardigan. Doesn't look like him, sound like him or act like him. Doesn't work at all.
Dominic West looks nothing like Charles. Mannerisms OK but he is an actor. Bare pass. Queen Mother just seems to be an old lady. Princess Anne is ok.
Cinematography and sets are, of course, gorgeous. Plotline and script complete bollocks. Stretches belief more than ever.
Here endeth the Royale royal review.
Increasingly thinking AZ could end up being a major legal battle
In 2013, during Mr Fetterman's second term as mayor of Braddock, a town near Pittsburgh, he pursued an innocent black jogger who he wrongly thought had been firing a gun near his home.
Mr Fetterman, who is a hulking 6ft 8in and was armed with a shotgun during the confrontation, has refused to apologise for the incident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61687873
"wasn't in charge of any specific department. Instead, he was Minister of State (Minister without Portfolio). That means that instead of being in charge of something like defence or health, he was more of a general contributor to the running of government."
Actually he oversaw the Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund – a cross-government body that finds solutions to complex national security challenges and reports to the Foreign Policy and Security Council, formerly known as the National Security Council. He was without portfolio in name only.
IVF, 22-23 weeks, twins, now in their mid teens, one with very serious developmental delays (no speech, but can work his way around YouTube on an iPad and find children’s programmes that he likes) - the other, doing his GCSEs with only minor issues.
The abortion issue simply ain’t simple. Those trying to distil the the issue to fundamental rights aren’t seriously engaging with the issue. These people poison the debate.
As opposed to on a silver spoon with no real problems to worry about, so they do this instead?
What if they have taken time off work to protest ?
What about those who are self employed ?
We have laws already to deal with them. Let it take its course.
You're just othering them and missing their likely nature and motivations.
I did think that the earlier series balanced the family melodrama with historical context much better than the 80s series though which went heavy on the Charles/Diana angle (yawn) and although I haven’t watched the new one I suspect it will be similar?
I dislike these people’s approach and I want them dealt with under the law. You appear to want them to starve or freeze, should they happen to be on benefits.
I'm not doing that, you are.
I have my own opinion, but respect the right of others to hold theirs. You aren't worried about "poisoning the debate", you want to brook no debate. For you its your way, and your way alone, or people are "not serious".
Everyone in this discussion is being serious, well almost everyone, but people can hold opinions other than your own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO7VkEFZ7B8
Kent narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler (R), one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Back in June FiveThirtyEight rated the district an almost certain Republican hold. But that was before the August primary.
I don't think the wrongly bit is unobjective, so long as it had since been established he was, indeed, wrong.
I flipping called it.
Republicans now need only 1 of Georgia or Arizona to seize both houses.
It’s easy for people to say just leave those who climb above motorways, but the police really cannot just leave them. If one fell and ended up causing a serious, or fatal crash, then there would be hell to pay.
However, when they get hold of the protesters then there needs to be consequences, just as there was for the Father For Justice campaigners who did similar stunts.
There was some Americans last year who murdered a jogger who had jogged through a half-constructed newbuild house. Richly deserved conviction, natch, but in 40 years of jogging I have never wandered off track like that.
90%+ of abortions are first trimester, and many of the late ones because of serious foetal abnormalities, or complex social issues like concealed pregnancy.
Fox jr2 had several other embryos frozen with him that we never implanted. They were allowed to defrost when the storage licence ran out (limited to 5 years as I recall). Anything fertility related runs into ethical dilemmas.
But that is just the current vote so far.
I present the London riots (and the fact that this lot were remanded in custody) as evidence that the courts “get it”.
False alarm.
https://twitter.com/BBCJayneMcC/status/1590453190562308096
It is 594,415
There are tens of thousands more votes to count. THey literally have at least 30,000 more to count today alone. And that's without cracking open the Drop Boxes (300 drop boxes)
Has the figures I quoted.
Bottom right hand corner.
A historical example: In 1869, Wyoming voted to give women the vote. Other states followed, and finally in 1919 Congress passed the 19th amendment, which was ratified by the necessary number of states on August 18, 1920. But, on this fundamental subject, for decades the states had "different election laws".
Straight in, head first.
I think California are still counting the 2016 Presidential election votes.
I suspect that Tarquin and Griselda might find a gap year lodging at His Majesty's pleasure might be slightly less comfortable than what Mummy and Daddy offered. And no Nanny or Waitrose there either.
The pertinent thing is that the report from the Clark County bod was just about current figures, not outstanding ballots.
I'm also not so sure that the courts would see it your way: the Bristol statue case was very interesting.