There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
Evening all, interesting bit of news for today. According to Dieter Helm, that Oxford analyst I remember being quoted somehere, if interest rates reach 5% then the water companies will need propping up by government.
If the government has to pump huge amount of taxpayers' money to deal with their leveraged private equity mess, without getting any further public accountability or control, the public anger over dirty rivers and appalling management of many things will be look like a walk in the park for them, compared.
Listening to Bloomberg today they say that inflation is not under control in the US and much higher rates are required from the Fed
They said this will lead to recession in the US much as Hunt intimated today
Inflation is always stickier than blithely predicted. Wage demands are going to be huge next year to make up for falling real wages. It's not called a vicious circle for nothing.
Yes big pain for mortgage holders to come here. Gilt yields back to where they were round the truss debacle.
Someone called Mayfair complaining about mortgage prices? Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go.
Schofield has finally been caught out ... But he's not the only guilty party. 4 high members of Itv management knew what sort of man he was ...and NEVER once took action to prevent him controlling or taking advantage of his position over young people.
There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
Schofield has finally been caught out ... But he's not the only guilty party. 4 high members of Itv management knew what sort of man he was ...and NEVER once took action to prevent him controlling or taking advantage of his position over young people.
I think the issue with Schofield is the mendaciousness of his Coming Out PR.
I agree this is a non-story and that it is up to Schofield who he shags. The trouble is that people smell a rat behind the public image.
I think there is the element of grooming about it too. In other contexts it would be strongly called out. I.e. 16 year old girl asks for help getting into my Uni. I help out, she turns up, stays friendly with me and then I embark on an affair with her. Nothing illegal, but bot right, at least in my eyes. Schofield is a massive hypocrite and liar, and for that alone his career is done.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
What do you think about Bailey? What do you think IR’s should be?
I haven’t kept up with the Trussite narrative, although iirc Kate Andrews on the specie pod seemed to have a negative opinion of him.
I'm not up with the Trussite narrative either - I supported what she tried to do, but I don't read her output avidly. Kwasi seems to be making the rounds atm, don't know why.
I expect he thinks he will be rehabilitated and put in the shadow cabinet after the next GE.
I think the issue with Schofield is the mendaciousness of his Coming Out PR.
I agree this is a non-story and that it is up to Schofield who he shags. The trouble is that people smell a rat behind the public image.
I think there is the element of grooming about it too. In other contexts it would be strongly called out. I.e. 16 year old girl asks for help getting into my Uni. I help out, she turns up, stays friendly with me and then I embark on an affair with her. Nothing illegal, but bot right, at least in my eyes. Schofield is a massive hypocrite and liar, and for that alone his career is done.
Brigitte Macron has entered the chat
Its one thing is the person is 16 (too young an age of consent in my view). Its quite another if the person is in their 20s.
There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
Absolutely.
Obviously you dont have kids then. Do you think it is acceptable to teach anal sex to 10 year olds and rimming.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
At least its less stale than the constant failure that is ethnonationalist victimhood.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
At least its less stale than the constant failure that is ethnonationalist victimhood.
Maybe authoritarian leadership is the future rather than weak western democracies.
Evening all, interesting bit of news for today. According to Dieter Helm, that Oxford analyst I remember being quoted somehere, if interest rates reach 5% then the water companies will need propping up by government.
If the government has to pump huge amount of taxpayers' money to deal with their leveraged private equity mess, without getting any further public accountability or control, the public anger over dirty rivers and appalling management of many things will be look like a walk in the park for them, compared.
Oooh. That is a big danger for the tories. I assumed the water companies debt was fixed and very very long term. I did a google news search for dieter helm and couldn’t see anything? Do you have a link?
Pondering further Hunts comments today - I wonder at what point Baileys position becomes untenable?
Yes, will have a look back to see if I can find it.
The actual report was from last autumn, when he said their private equity model isn't viable if interest rates were to rise much more than where they were then, which I think was about 4.75%, or so.
I think the issue with Schofield is the mendaciousness of his Coming Out PR.
I agree this is a non-story and that it is up to Schofield who he shags. The trouble is that people smell a rat behind the public image.
I think there is the element of grooming about it too. In other contexts it would be strongly called out. I.e. 16 year old girl asks for help getting into my Uni. I help out, she turns up, stays friendly with me and then I embark on an affair with her. Nothing illegal, but bot right, at least in my eyes. Schofield is a massive hypocrite and liar, and for that alone his career is done.
Nothing to do with grooming sfaict but maybe abuse of power, if Schofield had (or seemed to have) influence over the younger man's career (or a student's admission and grades).
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
Absolutely.
Obviously you dont have kids then. Do you think it is acceptable to teach anal sex to 10 year olds and rimming.
Live demonstrations in the classroom are the only way forward.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
Representative democracy still works, mainly general elections only every 4 or 5 years. Direct democracy and regular divisive referendums however doesn't on the whole
It works well in Switzerland, where the politicians accept that the people run the show.
The only reason it sometimes works in Switzerland is the Swiss are amongst the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, so far less prone to populism
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
My boy Dave handled it so well.
He did actually. What Schofiled and This Morning did on that interview was disgraceful. Dave handled it great (as he tended to do with most things... But then he could also have the most bizarre screw up - like HMQ purrrrrrrring down the phone)
Dave could have been one of the all time great PMs since WWII but there were just too many screw ups and too many risks taken that in the end he ran out of road.
A shame.
David Cameron could not have been one of our greatest Prime Ministers. It is not even a matter of screw-ups. In his time as LotO, the Conservatives were working for years on new policies so they could hit the ground running, yet when it came to it, no-one in the Cabinet knew WTF Lansley was up to with his NHS changes, and IDS's Universal Benefit was undermined by the Chancellor.
Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. He lost Europe. He almost lost Scotland.
Lord Goderich was way, way worse than Lord North.
Careful. Remember the site rules against disrespecting Cambridge-educated lawyers.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
But it's Russia doing the invading and occupying, since 2014 in fact.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
It means that people pointing out it is silly or unmeritocratic doesn't really strike home, since people know that very well already and and yet campaigners act like they are blowing our minds, but that a major scandal could collapse it out of nowhere (we have seen this happen with monarchies, and these days it is rare to then go back), since once the fundamental premise is overcome the other issues suddenly matter again.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
Representative democracy still works, mainly general elections only every 4 or 5 years. Direct democracy and regular divisive referendums however doesn't on the whole
It works well in Switzerland, where the politicians accept that the people run the show.
The only reason it sometimes works in Switzerland is the Swiss are amongst the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, so far less prone to populism
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
Representative democracy still works, mainly general elections only every 4 or 5 years. Direct democracy and regular divisive referendums however doesn't on the whole
It works well in Switzerland, where the politicians accept that the people run the show.
The only reason it sometimes works in Switzerland is the Swiss are amongst the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, so far less prone to populism
You've got it the wrong way round. It's the secure, stable, participatory, civic, neutral democracy that has made Switzerland an economic stronghold with educated wealthy people - and keeps it that way. They don't need 'populism' because populism is a reaction to unpopular laws being put in place, and they don't do that in the first place. Hence they've always stayed out of the EU despite their politicians itching to take them in.
Johnson and Trump meet over dinner today to progress their respective resurrections.
Trump has a much better chance of it. He's a far worse person, but he literally has most of his party not caring whether he commits crimes (many have been clear it's not simply a case that they believe him innocent), whereas Boris was actually forced by his MPs to stand down because he's a screw up.
Regret that though they may, the very fact they had the balls to do it shows why a comeback won't work.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
Representative democracy still works, mainly general elections only every 4 or 5 years. Direct democracy and regular divisive referendums however doesn't on the whole
It works well in Switzerland, where the politicians accept that the people run the show.
The only reason it sometimes works in Switzerland is the Swiss are amongst the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, so far less prone to populism
We could try making our citizens wealthier and more educated?
I think a chicken and egg debate may also be relevant.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Yeah, wanting fascism to fail, just like watching Sky Sports. You tell the edgiest of edgy truths. Go you.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
Representative democracy still works, mainly general elections only every 4 or 5 years. Direct democracy and regular divisive referendums however doesn't on the whole
It works well in Switzerland, where the politicians accept that the people run the show.
The only reason it sometimes works in Switzerland is the Swiss are amongst the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, so far less prone to populism
You've got it the wrong way round. It's the secure, stable, participatory, civic, neutral democracy that has made Switzerland an economic stronghold with educated wealthy people - and keeps it that way. They don't need 'populism' because populism is a reaction to unpopular laws being put in place, and they don't do that in the first place. Hence they've always stayed out of the EU despite their politicians itching to take them in.
No, it is the fact Switzerland is a tax haven has attracted wealthy people to it and most of them tend to be highly educated. Most people in the UK could not afford to live in Switzerland and would not have the high skills to be allowed to emigrate there either
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
But it's Russia doing the invading and occupying, since 2014 in fact.
Yes, invading other countries is almost always wrong. It was wrong when Germany invaded Poland, when the US invaded Iraq and when Russia invaded Ukraine. It's really not hard to see who the bad guys were in each case.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
Representative democracy still works, mainly general elections only every 4 or 5 years. Direct democracy and regular divisive referendums however doesn't on the whole
It works well in Switzerland, where the politicians accept that the people run the show.
The only reason it sometimes works in Switzerland is the Swiss are amongst the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, so far less prone to populism
You've got it the wrong way round. It's the secure, stable, participatory, civic, neutral democracy that has made Switzerland an economic stronghold with educated wealthy people - and keeps it that way. They don't need 'populism' because populism is a reaction to unpopular laws being put in place, and they don't do that in the first place. Hence they've always stayed out of the EU despite their politicians itching to take them in.
No, it is the fact Switzerland is a tax haven has attracted wealthy people to it and most of them tend to be highly educated. Most people in the UK could not afford to live in Switzerland and would not have the high skills to be allowed to emigrate there either
My parents lived in Switzerland for 6 years and I have visited the country frequently and have good friends there. You clearly know the square root of fuck all about the country; sorry to be firm. The fact that Gina Lollobridgida and Nana Maskouri have taken up residence has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the success of their participatory democracy, which involves every Swiss person, and there are plenty there in manual jobs who don’t have university degrees, who still take an active role in their democracy and consider it their civic duty to do so.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the heads of most casual “Go Ukraine!” Brits.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it. I understand only bits and pieces of the puzzle. DuraAce has a pretty good understanding of the situation, to be fair, from what I can see.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Yeah, wanting fascism to fail, just like watching Sky Sports. You tell the edgiest of edgy truths. Go you.
There is a real point here, underneath the cliched schtick. It's common to criticise some opinions as being done in a performative or virtue signalling way, with an implicaiton those doing it are being foolish. And it is true, people do signal their values and virtues.
But that's what pretty much all expression does to some degree. And even if someone wanted to lay it on a bit thick, to be precise in how they want to signal their virue, that doesn't make it insincere, it doesn't render it meaningless, it doesn't mean those opinions are based on irrational emotion and those which are more temporate or darkly cynical are more 'correct', nor that there is something wrong with signalling some virtues on rather straightforward matters. I'm not automatically more right on a subject than someone more prone to vituperation just because I tend towards moderate expression most of the time.
It's just a kind of stereotypical teenagey angst that showing enthusiasm or emotion about something is not cool somehow, or that people are incapable of assessment if they display any overt support for one side over another.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the head of most casual observers.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
It's not like a civil war. It's a foreign invasion. A literal war of conquest against an innocent country.
Countries don't have to be perfect to be regarded as innocent victims. Ukraine's deficiencies are pale compared to what has been done to them, and the implicit victim-blaming here is crass if you didn't mean it and repugnant if you did.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the head of most casual “Go Ukraine!” observers.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it. I understand only bits and pieces of the puzzle. DuraAce has a pretty good understanding of the situation, to be fair, from what I can see.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
Easy hit is what it merited.
People do not have to caveat every utterance with acknowledgement of the complexities of a situation in order to demonstrate they are not reacting like childlike lemmings.
I like Dura's no-nonsense attitude, he comes at things from a different angle and he knows the limits of his own knowledge and so doesn't expect his words to be treated as gospel, but he also likes a rough and ready approach and the 'insight' here was framed in a manner which didn't require and I expect didn't wish for a measured analysis.
You don't make comparisons of that situation to being like supporting a football team if you want to provoke measured responses. I expect he'd be disappointed if he got one.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the heads of most casual “Go Ukraine!” Brits.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it. I understand only bits and pieces of the puzzle. DuraAce has a pretty good understanding of the situation, to be fair, from what I can see.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
Who did the invading and occupying? Russia or Ukraine?
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the head of most casual “Go Ukraine!” observers.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it. I understand only bits and pieces of the puzzle. DuraAce has a pretty good understanding of the situation, to be fair, from what I can see.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
Easy hit is what it merited.
People do not have to caveat every utterance with acknowledgement of the complexities of a situation in order to demonstrate they are not reacting like childlike lemmings.
I like Dura's no-nonsense attitude, he comes at things from a different angle and he knows the limits of his own knowledge and so doesn't expect his words to be treated as gospel, but he also likes a rough and ready approach and the 'insight' here was framed in a manner which didn't require and I expect didn't wish for a measured analysis.
You don't make comparisons of that situation to being like supporting a football team if you want to provoke measured responses. I expect he'd be disappointed if he got one.
Quite. Dura's no shrinking violet. If he wants an elevated conversation about the relative merits of particular foreign policy choices, he hides it well.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
There are a few which clearly want to, with sons inheriting presidencies from their fathers and that sort of thing, but it's not the done thing anymore. It's like how even most terribly dictatorial regimes often pretend to have some level of democratic endorsment - even if it is transparently a sham, it implies that they think they should pretend Democracy to some extent is a good idea. Likewise, even republics which are in effect monarchies tend to think they cannot just admit they are a monarchy, as that would look bad.
The non-autocratic ones I think we all know the answer - if you don't already have one, there's not a great deal of benefit to creating one.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
Wasn't in Spain which happily restored constitutional monarchy. Wasn't here either when we restored the monarchy after Cromwell. I would certainly consider emigrating from the UK to a constitutional monarchy if we ever became a republic while campaigning to restore the monarchy in the UK.
Monarchists generally wouldn't move to the US Republic either so nothing to dispute my statement or monarchists in the USA could also move to a constitutional monarchy, like say their northern neighbour Canada
Johnson and Trump meet over dinner today to progress their respective resurrections.
I know people are cynical about Johnson, but I'm sure that one of the things on his agenda was making sure Trump is sound on Ukraine.
People are cynical about Johnson, which is why they know that fluffy stories like this are put about to nurse his dwindling popularity. "Oh, maybe Boris is the best person to keep that madman in line! Let's get him back!" is what they want us to think.
In the end Boris won't be in any position to moderate Trump, and even if he promised to try, I would file it in the same round filing cabinet I'd put any other promise from that sexually incontinent windbag.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
Wasn't in Spain which happily restored constitutional monarchy. Wasn't here either when we restored the monarchy after Cromwell. I would certainly consider emigrating from the UK to a constitutional monarchy if we ever became a republic while campaigning to restore the monarchy in the UK.
Monarchists generally wouldn't move to the US Republic either so nothing to dispute my statement or monarchists in the USA could also move to a constitutional monarchy, like say their northern neighbour Canada
Franco's Spain wasn't a republic. He overthrew the republic and executed many of its leaders. When the people of Spain embraced the new constitution, that was them embracing democracy after decades of Falangist dictatorship.
I hadn't realised adopting a republic would also see you leave the country. That's got to be worth a few votes.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
Nope the reason we don't have more monarchies is because it is pretty much a one way street, not because people don't necessarilty want them but except in exceptional circumstances like Spain it is generally impossible to decide who should be the monarch.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
Nope the reason we don't have more monarchies is because it is pretty much a one way street, not because people don't necessarilty want them but except in exceptional circumstances like Spain it is generally impossible to decide who should be the monarch.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
They aren't stable because they're monarchies, they're monarchies because they've been stable.
Monarchy wasn't stable for Italy, or for Austria-Hungary, or for Spain. The early decades of last century culled them, so now you're left pointing at Denmark and Sweden and saying that, that's what monarchy looks like. Selection bias, plain as the nose on your face.
There were parents in wales complaining about the disgusting sexual propganda in schools. Thats the west. Pervert central with n.nces for tv presenters.
Ok. Piss off, now.
So you support the sexual propoganda in schools. Are you a pervert.
If there was sexual propaganda and perversion at my school, I might have bothered turning up.
I was quite enjoying this woke not woke stuff. I haven't quite got my head round it yet......
I went to the Cannes film festival on Wednesday and three girls were doing a synchronised walk down the Croisette topless. (It's tricky grabbing attention)
The question is what would the correct woke response be?
The question is, did you get inside any of the festival, if so what can you report?
A friend of mine, who wrote the plays I acted in, went last week, went down to walk about because he likes to think he’s in the trade, but a selfie with Harrison Ford and a viewing of directors cut of Basic Instinct is all he managed.
A selfie on the Red Carpet with Harrison Ford doesn't sound bad. Certainly beats one with this years favourite Ken Loach.
I'm hoping Jonathan Glazer does well. A very talented commercials directors and I'm told this one is really good.
PS Like to guess which is older the Cannes Film Festival or the Monaco grand Prix?
Clue. It surprised me.
Obviously the film festival is older, oldest in the world, no point even googling.
I loved Under The Skin and how it was made. Scarlet Johansson driving a white van around Glasgow like a fly on a fishing line, what’s not to like. Not sure about his 4th film. Everything to do with the Shoah I find difficult to watch, sad depressing and makes me angry, so won’t seek it out. Four features in 24 years is slow going isn’t it?
Ken Loach announced this is his last film, so I’m sure he’ll get a send off on his last lap of honour. More appreciated abroad than at home? I liked Land and Freedom, but every other Loach film I have seen I didn’t like at all, they are like books dense and slow in prose but superficial in premise. I know friends who went on a March and Loach was there, and he really wound them up being obnoxious about their politics.
I also suspect UK film industry are run by a luvvies club full of Loach acolytes, who all know each other, money given out to each other like a closed shop. Hopefully not as bad as the French film industry is at closing ranks
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
Nope the reason we don't have more monarchies is because it is pretty much a one way street, not because people don't necessarilty want them but except in exceptional circumstances like Spain it is generally impossible to decide who should be the monarch.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
They aren't stable because they're monarchies, they're monarchies because they've been stable.
Monarchy wasn't stable for Italy, or for Austria-Hungary, or for Spain. The early decades of last century culled them, so now you're left pointing at Denmark and Sweden and saying that, that's what monarchy looks like. Selection bias, plain as the nose on your face.
The examples you give aren't very supportive to your argument. Monarchy has promoted stability even in the countries you cite.
It was the Italian monarchy that got rid of Mussolini and the Spanish monarchy that was a bulwark against a return to dictatorship in 1974 when Franco died and again in 1980 during the attempted fascist coup. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy didn't survive a catastrophic defeat in the First World War (which it started) but many of the countries that grew out of it (e.g. Yugoslavia and Romania) set up monarchies themselves afterwards.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
Nope the reason we don't have more monarchies is because it is pretty much a one way street, not because people don't necessarilty want them but except in exceptional circumstances like Spain it is generally impossible to decide who should be the monarch.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
They aren't stable because they're monarchies, they're monarchies because they've been stable.
Monarchy wasn't stable for Italy, or for Austria-Hungary, or for Spain. The early decades of last century culled them, so now you're left pointing at Denmark and Sweden and saying that, that's what monarchy looks like. Selection bias, plain as the nose on your face.
The examples you give aren't very supportive to your argument. Monarchy has promoted stability even in the countries you cite.
It was the Italian monarchy that got rid of Mussolini and the Spanish monarchy that was a bulwark against a return to dictatorship in 1974 when Franco died and again in 1980 during the attempted fascist coup. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy didn't survive a catastrophic defeat in the First World War (which it started) but many of the countries that grew out of it (e.g. Yugoslavia and Romania) set up monarchies themselves afterwards.
I'd argue that other countries would benefit from it as well.
I think Russia would be much better off with an emblematic constitutional Tsar, around which the emotions and traditions of Russia and Russian history could be built - and a liberal democracy beneath it. I also think the same applies for a restored 'emperor' dynasty in China too.
Much better than an autocratic President, who subverts the constitution and the ballot box.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
Nope the reason we don't have more monarchies is because it is pretty much a one way street, not because people don't necessarilty want them but except in exceptional circumstances like Spain it is generally impossible to decide who should be the monarch.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
They aren't stable because they're monarchies, they're monarchies because they've been stable.
Monarchy wasn't stable for Italy, or for Austria-Hungary, or for Spain. The early decades of last century culled them, so now you're left pointing at Denmark and Sweden and saying that, that's what monarchy looks like. Selection bias, plain as the nose on your face.
The examples you give aren't very supportive to your argument. Monarchy has promoted stability even in the countries you cite.
It was the Italian monarchy that got rid of Mussolini and the Spanish monarchy that was a bulwark against a return to dictatorship in 1974 when Franco died and again in 1980 during the attempted fascist coup. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy didn't survive a catastrophic defeat in the First World War (which it started) but many of the countries that grew out of it (e.g. Yugoslavia and Romania) set up monarchies themselves afterwards.
FFS…“It was the Italian monarchy that got rid of Mussolini…”…after 21 years and under more than a little pressure from an an Allied invasion.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the heads of most casual “Go Ukraine!” Brits.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though....
Perhaps not, but it's almost completely bonkers. If there are elements of civil war - including the torture and murder of civilians - then they're taking onscreen in the occupied territories.
And name me a country which doesn't have its own thugs ?
The economic backdrop makes me think a Labour majority is increasingly likely and value from a betting perspective.
Some observers were right that the doom and gloom of a recession wasn't reflecting reality. And they were right. But for that same reason we still have full employment and rising core inflation.
Policymakers in the Treasury and BoE have admitted to this wage price spiral, and so we're going to see rates go over 5% and conceivably more. Only a recession is likely to depress demand sufficiently to get inflation towards 2% rather than 5%+.
And recessions in the 12 months before an election are unlikely to boost the popularity of an already unpopular government. It will be Labour's to lose.
Category question: do we count North Korea as a monarchy these days? In pretty much every sense of the word it is. I’m wondering if there are any other countries that are republics in official form but hereditary monarchies in substance (no, political dynasties like Kennedys and bushes don’t count).
And is there a constitutional form where there is no head of state at all, not even ceremonial? No reason there couldn’t be, but I’m not sure if it exists. Could the head of state be a legal entity - a holding company for example, or a trust, or cooperative (to sound less capitalist) in which all citizens are shareholders? The PM and cabinet therefore acting as the board in the interests of the investors. Add some non execs and voila, a national model of corporate governance.
Would be interesting to posit this sort of arrangement to voters in a poll, vs forms of presidency.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
What’s in a name? Plenty of Republics are monarchies or closed oligarchies in reality. Constitutional monarchies have a pretty good track record.
I don’t know why people get more worked up about symbolism (whether your head of State is called king or president) than the substance (whether or not you live in a free state).
For the sake of my blood pressure and general mental well-being, I sadly won’t be reading what sounds like a good book - Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell’s account of Johnson’s premiership ‘Johnson at 10’. Simply reading the review has got my hackles up:
‘Boris Johnson has been accused of many, many things over the years. But the parties and the lies, the sleaze and the juicier scandals don’t seem to interest historians Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell much. Their central complaint in this utterly scathing account of his time at No 10 is the more fundamental one that, as they put it, he “never understood how to be prime minister, nor how to govern”; that he didn’t know what he was doing, barely bothered learning, and was so lacking in moral seriousness that even when he tried he couldn’t transcend the limitations of his “base self”…
‘The story really begins with Johnson’s response to his side winning the Brexit referendum: far from celebrating, they write, he paced the house looking “ashen-faced and distraught”, panicking aloud that: “Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen.” What weighed most heavily in his choosing leave over remain, they suggest, was his own personal ambition…
‘The book describes a prime minister alarmingly unable to focus and seemingly out of his depth, who Cummings felt should be kept out of Brexit negotiations because “he didn’t understand them”. He promoted mediocre ministers who didn’t threaten him, played rival aides off against each other, and showed shockingly little interest in major issues such as education; privately agnostic about the divisive “war on woke”, he nonetheless let his government wage it vigorously. Even those closest to him struggled to discern his real opinions…
‘The case for Johnson’s defence is usually that he got Brexit done, rolled out a Covid vaccine and stood with Ukraine. But Seldon and Newell argue that Brexit hasn’t delivered as promised, that the real vaccine heroes were the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and NHS executive Dr Emily Lawson, with the European Commission president more influential on Ukraine…
‘… it refutes the dangerous myth that Boris Johnson was foiled by a remainer establishment, rather than his own incompetence. His former chief of staff Eddie Lister declares that there is “no evidence that the civil service impeded the delivery of Brexit” and the authors conclude that if Johnson didn’t always get what he wanted from Whitehall, that’s because he led it poorly…’
Brexit - no plan; a poor idea badly botched by a chancer charlatan. We continue to live with the baleful consequences. It’s not surprising he and Gove were ashen faced at the the presser the day after the referendum, they knew their jolly wheeze had exploded in their faces.
For the sake of my blood pressure and general mental well-being, I sadly won’t be reading what sounds like a good book - Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell’s account of Johnson’s premiership ‘Johnson at 10’. Simply reading the review has got my hackles up:
‘Boris Johnson has been accused of many, many things over the years. But the parties and the lies, the sleaze and the juicier scandals don’t seem to interest historians Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell much. Their central complaint in this utterly scathing account of his time at No 10 is the more fundamental one that, as they put it, he “never understood how to be prime minister, nor how to govern”; that he didn’t know what he was doing, barely bothered learning, and was so lacking in moral seriousness that even when he tried he couldn’t transcend the limitations of his “base self”…
‘The story really begins with Johnson’s response to his side winning the Brexit referendum: far from celebrating, they write, he paced the house looking “ashen-faced and distraught”, panicking aloud that: “Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen.” What weighed most heavily in his choosing leave over remain, they suggest, was his own personal ambition…
‘The book describes a prime minister alarmingly unable to focus and seemingly out of his depth, who Cummings felt should be kept out of Brexit negotiations because “he didn’t understand them”. He promoted mediocre ministers who didn’t threaten him, played rival aides off against each other, and showed shockingly little interest in major issues such as education; privately agnostic about the divisive “war on woke”, he nonetheless let his government wage it vigorously. Even those closest to him struggled to discern his real opinions…
‘The case for Johnson’s defence is usually that he got Brexit done, rolled out a Covid vaccine and stood with Ukraine. But Seldon and Newell argue that Brexit hasn’t delivered as promised, that the real vaccine heroes were the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and NHS executive Dr Emily Lawson, with the European Commission president more influential on Ukraine…
‘… it refutes the dangerous myth that Boris Johnson was foiled by a remainer establishment, rather than his own incompetence. His former chief of staff Eddie Lister declares that there is “no evidence that the civil service impeded the delivery of Brexit” and the authors conclude that if Johnson didn’t always get what he wanted from Whitehall, that’s because he led it poorly…’
Brexit - no plan; a poor idea badly botched by a chancer charlatan. We continue to live with the baleful consequences. It’s not surprising he and Gove were ashen faced at the the presser the day after the referendum, they knew their jolly wheeze had exploded in their faces.
I've read the book, it confirmed what I said long before Boris Johnson became PM.
He is fundamentally too lazy to be PM, he just wants the glory but none of the hard work.
For the sake of my blood pressure and general mental well-being, I sadly won’t be reading what sounds like a good book - Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell’s account of Johnson’s premiership ‘Johnson at 10’. Simply reading the review has got my hackles up:
‘Boris Johnson has been accused of many, many things over the years. But the parties and the lies, the sleaze and the juicier scandals don’t seem to interest historians Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell much. Their central complaint in this utterly scathing account of his time at No 10 is the more fundamental one that, as they put it, he “never understood how to be prime minister, nor how to govern”; that he didn’t know what he was doing, barely bothered learning, and was so lacking in moral seriousness that even when he tried he couldn’t transcend the limitations of his “base self”…
‘The story really begins with Johnson’s response to his side winning the Brexit referendum: far from celebrating, they write, he paced the house looking “ashen-faced and distraught”, panicking aloud that: “Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen.” What weighed most heavily in his choosing leave over remain, they suggest, was his own personal ambition…
‘The book describes a prime minister alarmingly unable to focus and seemingly out of his depth, who Cummings felt should be kept out of Brexit negotiations because “he didn’t understand them”. He promoted mediocre ministers who didn’t threaten him, played rival aides off against each other, and showed shockingly little interest in major issues such as education; privately agnostic about the divisive “war on woke”, he nonetheless let his government wage it vigorously. Even those closest to him struggled to discern his real opinions…
‘The case for Johnson’s defence is usually that he got Brexit done, rolled out a Covid vaccine and stood with Ukraine. But Seldon and Newell argue that Brexit hasn’t delivered as promised, that the real vaccine heroes were the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and NHS executive Dr Emily Lawson, with the European Commission president more influential on Ukraine…
‘… it refutes the dangerous myth that Boris Johnson was foiled by a remainer establishment, rather than his own incompetence. His former chief of staff Eddie Lister declares that there is “no evidence that the civil service impeded the delivery of Brexit” and the authors conclude that if Johnson didn’t always get what he wanted from Whitehall, that’s because he led it poorly…’
Brexit - no plan; a poor idea badly botched by a chancer charlatan. We continue to live with the baleful consequences. It’s not surprising he and Gove were ashen faced at the the presser the day after the referendum, they knew their jolly wheeze had exploded in their faces.
I've read the book, it confirmed what I said long before Boris Johnson became PM.
He is fundamentally too lazy to be PM, he just wants the glory but none of the hard work.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the heads of most casual “Go Ukraine!” Brits.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it. I understand only bits and pieces of the puzzle. DuraAce has a pretty good understanding of the situation, to be fair, from what I can see.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
Ukraine in the 1940’s? That was complex. The UPA fought with the Nazis, and against the Nazis. They wanted independence, but also murdered Jews and Poles. The Communists fought the Nazis, but repressed the Ukrainians and expelled the Poles.
There’s not a lot of complexity about Ukraine today. It’s pretty obvious who the aggressor is.
Now, for a section of the extreme left and extreme Right, Putin is either The Man, or the guy who’s anti-western, and anyone who’s anti-western must have some good about him. But, those are not morally complex arguments.
For the sake of my blood pressure and general mental well-being, I sadly won’t be reading what sounds like a good book - Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell’s account of Johnson’s premiership ‘Johnson at 10’. Simply reading the review has got my hackles up:
‘Boris Johnson has been accused of many, many things over the years. But the parties and the lies, the sleaze and the juicier scandals don’t seem to interest historians Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell much. Their central complaint in this utterly scathing account of his time at No 10 is the more fundamental one that, as they put it, he “never understood how to be prime minister, nor how to govern”; that he didn’t know what he was doing, barely bothered learning, and was so lacking in moral seriousness that even when he tried he couldn’t transcend the limitations of his “base self”…
‘The story really begins with Johnson’s response to his side winning the Brexit referendum: far from celebrating, they write, he paced the house looking “ashen-faced and distraught”, panicking aloud that: “Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen.” What weighed most heavily in his choosing leave over remain, they suggest, was his own personal ambition…
‘The book describes a prime minister alarmingly unable to focus and seemingly out of his depth, who Cummings felt should be kept out of Brexit negotiations because “he didn’t understand them”. He promoted mediocre ministers who didn’t threaten him, played rival aides off against each other, and showed shockingly little interest in major issues such as education; privately agnostic about the divisive “war on woke”, he nonetheless let his government wage it vigorously. Even those closest to him struggled to discern his real opinions…
‘The case for Johnson’s defence is usually that he got Brexit done, rolled out a Covid vaccine and stood with Ukraine. But Seldon and Newell argue that Brexit hasn’t delivered as promised, that the real vaccine heroes were the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and NHS executive Dr Emily Lawson, with the European Commission president more influential on Ukraine…
‘… it refutes the dangerous myth that Boris Johnson was foiled by a remainer establishment, rather than his own incompetence. His former chief of staff Eddie Lister declares that there is “no evidence that the civil service impeded the delivery of Brexit” and the authors conclude that if Johnson didn’t always get what he wanted from Whitehall, that’s because he led it poorly…’
Brexit - no plan; a poor idea badly botched by a chancer charlatan. We continue to live with the baleful consequences. It’s not surprising he and Gove were ashen faced at the the presser the day after the referendum, they knew their jolly wheeze had exploded in their faces.
That's exactly how it feels. An Old Etonian having a jolly jape by seeing if he could get the public to buy the crackpot idea that was Brexit not believing they could be so stupid or so easily hoodwinked and then not having the faintest idea what to do when he discovered they were
Category question: do we count North Korea as a monarchy these days? In pretty much every sense of the word it is. I’m wondering if there are any other countries that are republics in official form but hereditary monarchies in substance (no, political dynasties like Kennedys and bushes don’t count).
And is there a constitutional form where there is no head of state at all, not even ceremonial? No reason there couldn’t be, but I’m not sure if it exists. Could the head of state be a legal entity - a holding company for example, or a trust, or cooperative (to sound less capitalist) in which all citizens are shareholders? The PM and cabinet therefore acting as the board in the interests of the investors. Add some non execs and voila, a national model of corporate governance.
Would be interesting to posit this sort of arrangement to voters in a poll, vs forms of presidency.
No North Korea is not a monarchy, it is a Communist state and an absolute dictatorship enforced by the military whose President just happens to be the same as his father. Monarchs are also aristocrats, which the Jong Uns aren't or never have been
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
What's the weather like in Moscow?
There's a refreshing and witty take on the situation that we've never heard before.
With ukraines lamentable battlefield performance they aint got many comebacks left. When does the spring offensive start.
That's a strange response. Why are you emotionally invested in Russian military success? Are you longing for a conqueror to look up to?
There are plenty of British people on here who are incredibly emotionally invested, to the point of autoeroticism, in a Ukrainian military success. It's like football. It's just more interesting if you've got a favourite team.
Very edgy, as ever. Who could ever have predicted emotional investment in conflicts which make the news?
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
DuraAce is correct that there’s a level of complexity and nuance to the Ukraine situation that goes way over the head of most casual observers.
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
It's not like a civil war. It's a foreign invasion. A literal war of conquest against an innocent country.
Countries don't have to be perfect to be regarded as innocent victims. Ukraine's deficiencies are pale compared to what has been done to them, and the implicit victim-blaming here is crass if you didn't mean it and repugnant if you did.
The Russian speaking population in the eastern parts of Ukraine have some claim to be regarded as victims, IE when the state briefly removed Russian as an official language.
It seems to me that the answer to this conflict is probably not in the total defeat of Russia, but in the partitioning of Ukraine, and it is better to try and get to this position in the next 18 months when Russia is at its weakest point, and Ukraine is being fully backed by the US. Russia may well come to be in an advantageous position by 2025 dependent on the outcome of the election.
The problem is that it took ChatGPT less than a minute to generate its bullshit, and it takes considerably longer than that for a human to establish that it's bullshit.
Consequently, we are all still going to drown in ChatGPT-generated bullshit. Brace?
For the sake of my blood pressure and general mental well-being, I sadly won’t be reading what sounds like a good book - Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell’s account of Johnson’s premiership ‘Johnson at 10’. Simply reading the review has got my hackles up:
‘Boris Johnson has been accused of many, many things over the years. But the parties and the lies, the sleaze and the juicier scandals don’t seem to interest historians Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell much. Their central complaint in this utterly scathing account of his time at No 10 is the more fundamental one that, as they put it, he “never understood how to be prime minister, nor how to govern”; that he didn’t know what he was doing, barely bothered learning, and was so lacking in moral seriousness that even when he tried he couldn’t transcend the limitations of his “base self”…
‘The story really begins with Johnson’s response to his side winning the Brexit referendum: far from celebrating, they write, he paced the house looking “ashen-faced and distraught”, panicking aloud that: “Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen.” What weighed most heavily in his choosing leave over remain, they suggest, was his own personal ambition…
‘The book describes a prime minister alarmingly unable to focus and seemingly out of his depth, who Cummings felt should be kept out of Brexit negotiations because “he didn’t understand them”. He promoted mediocre ministers who didn’t threaten him, played rival aides off against each other, and showed shockingly little interest in major issues such as education; privately agnostic about the divisive “war on woke”, he nonetheless let his government wage it vigorously. Even those closest to him struggled to discern his real opinions…
‘The case for Johnson’s defence is usually that he got Brexit done, rolled out a Covid vaccine and stood with Ukraine. But Seldon and Newell argue that Brexit hasn’t delivered as promised, that the real vaccine heroes were the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and NHS executive Dr Emily Lawson, with the European Commission president more influential on Ukraine…
‘… it refutes the dangerous myth that Boris Johnson was foiled by a remainer establishment, rather than his own incompetence. His former chief of staff Eddie Lister declares that there is “no evidence that the civil service impeded the delivery of Brexit” and the authors conclude that if Johnson didn’t always get what he wanted from Whitehall, that’s because he led it poorly…’
Brexit - no plan; a poor idea badly botched by a chancer charlatan. We continue to live with the baleful consequences. It’s not surprising he and Gove were ashen faced at the the presser the day after the referendum, they knew their jolly wheeze had exploded in their faces.
I've read the book, it confirmed what I said long before Boris Johnson became PM.
He is fundamentally too lazy to be PM, he just wants the glory but none of the hard work.
Also, Boris has only ever really understood one thing; how to make the person in front of him like him/want to sleep with him/vote for him. It's a genuine talent, and requires genuine effort, but it's left no space for anything else.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The monarchy is pretty pointless, as most can see.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be the most prosperous and stable and free in the world and it prevents President Johnson or President Blair
How many people in republics would switch to a monarchy? Tends to be single digit percentages.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
We have constitutional not absolute monarchy so the point is absurd. I suspect most people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, maybe in time even Russia and China and Cuba would switch to constitutional monarchy tomorrow from the republics they are in. Even the US and France now are far more politically unstable than most constitutional monarchies are
And yet the desire to switch to monarchy is nearly non-existent. E.g. 3% for and 93% against in the USA.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words: Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
It's not really a fair comparison, when there is no monarchy to restore. Even some countries where there were monarchs are now organised into different territories so it would no longer make sense.
Nobody's stopping any republic, whatever its territorial extent, whether or not there's been a monarchy based there before, from adopting a monarchy.
Why do they tend to not want to?
Stupid question. How would you set about deciding who becomes the Monarch? Elect them? Monarchy works very well in countries that already have them. Whether or not other countries have them is immaterial.
That's exactly the point! Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
Nope the reason we don't have more monarchies is because it is pretty much a one way street, not because people don't necessarilty want them but except in exceptional circumstances like Spain it is generally impossible to decide who should be the monarch.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
They aren't stable because they're monarchies, they're monarchies because they've been stable.
Monarchy wasn't stable for Italy, or for Austria-Hungary, or for Spain. The early decades of last century culled them, so now you're left pointing at Denmark and Sweden and saying that, that's what monarchy looks like. Selection bias, plain as the nose on your face.
The examples you give aren't very supportive to your argument. Monarchy has promoted stability even in the countries you cite.
It was the Italian monarchy that got rid of Mussolini and the Spanish monarchy that was a bulwark against a return to dictatorship in 1974 when Franco died and again in 1980 during the attempted fascist coup. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy didn't survive a catastrophic defeat in the First World War (which it started) but many of the countries that grew out of it (e.g. Yugoslavia and Romania) set up monarchies themselves afterwards.
I'd argue that other countries would benefit from it as well.
I think Russia would be much better off with an emblematic constitutional Tsar, around which the emotions and traditions of Russia and Russian history could be built - and a liberal democracy beneath it. I also think the same applies for a restored 'emperor' dynasty in China too.
Much better than an autocratic President, who subverts the constitution and the ballot box.
Russia was certainly much less of a danger to the world under the Tsars than Stalin and Putin. Bring back the Tsars in a constitutional monarchy I say, there are still a few Romanov descendants left
The problem is that it took ChatGPT less than a minute to generate its bullshit, and it takes considerably longer than that for a human to establish that it's bullshit.
Consequently, we are all still going to drown in ChatGPT-generated bullshit. Brace?
To provide some context to the above, some studious researchers did an analysis of citations in peer-reviewed papers, and they found that they were able to track errors in citations, to create a sort-of lineage of where paper authors had copied citations from a paper, rather than writing their own citations. Once errors are out in the wild they get copied and propagated, because people don't bother to check them.
I expect what will happen is that there will be judges in future who aren't as pedantic or diligent, and bullshit citations created by ChatGPT will be accepted as true, entered into the Court record, and subsequently copied by others. In the future there will be two types of lawyers. There will be the lawyers who use ChatGPT to generate copious reams of bullshit, and there will be the lawyers who struggle vainly to shovel that bullshit out of the way.
People have known this for a while. Currently, AI has no concept of truth, and it's not obvious that truth can emerge from AI doing what it currently does harder, faster and with more data.
For some tasks, creating art or fiction or certain sorts of journalism, that doesn't matter much. (Joining the threads together, see the journalistic career of Boris.) And the ability to make a dozen possibilities cheaply and in minutes is a boon. Take these rather lovely AI attempts at town planning;
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
They are entitled to their view. But not to impose their view on someone else
They are in strongly religious states like Texas
No, they are not.
Passing a law means they are legally allowed to. That does not mean they are entitled to.
Well tough, if secular liberals choose to live in a very religious state like Texas they have to accept the fact it has a Republican Governor and Legislature, voted for Trump and is strongly socially conservative and will pass socially conservative laws
Tyranny of the majority is no basis for a stable democracy.
Personally I don’t think that Christ was ok with people stoning the woman taking in adultery. It’s the same with divorce: let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone
So democracy is OK so long as it supports social liberalism, the moment it doesn't democracy is not OK then on that basis.
Restricting divorce is also not the same as stoning adulterers and you know it
My dad commented to me today that he no longer supported democracy as he doesnt believe it works. Many are now talking like this. No tough decisions can be made.
1) If a passenger jet crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, on which side do you bury the survivors? 2) What question is Piers Corbyn the answer to? 3) Pineapple on pizza - warcrime?
The problem is that it took ChatGPT less than a minute to generate its bullshit, and it takes considerably longer than that for a human to establish that it's bullshit.
Consequently, we are all still going to drown in ChatGPT-generated bullshit. Brace?
More to the point, AI is at an early stage of development. That it's only good enough for some tasks isn't a measure if its potential.
This week's bot was almost impressive. Ranting about woke in schools. How democracy is failing. How strong leadership is needed.
We sure he is a Russian bot? And not one of the NatC speakers? TBH I look at some of the GBeebies people on Twitter and they don't sound much different.
People have known this for a while. Currently, AI has no concept of truth, and it's not obvious that truth can emerge from AI doing what it currently does harder, faster and with more data.
For some tasks, creating art or fiction or certain sorts of journalism, that doesn't matter much. (Joining the threads together, see the journalistic career of Boris.) And the ability to make a dozen possibilities cheaply and in minutes is a boon. Take these rather lovely AI attempts at town planning;
Comments
Schofield has finally been caught out ... But he's not the only guilty party. 4 high members of Itv management knew what sort of man he was ...and NEVER once took action to prevent him controlling or taking advantage of his position over young people.
8:06 PM · May 26, 2023
·
6.5M
Views
https://twitter.com/EamonnHolmes/status/1662173477732769794?s=20
The actual report was from last autumn, when he said their private equity model isn't viable if interest rates were to rise much more than where they were then, which I think was about 4.75%, or so.
What keeps it in place is the “1,000 years of tradition” argument and the “nobody can think of anything better to replace it” argument.
Both arguments are simultaneously strong, and hopelessly weak.
Up for auction,
Let's get someone to come out with something idiotic like 'Why do people even care about things happening in X?' as though international affairs are of no concern to anyone in reality and it is just silly.
No, let's just pretend instead that it's strange to get emotionally invested in events, and imply it's not real or rational to do so. We could be cool and troll people with terminology while we're at it, that's what a rebel does.
And yeah, I'd choose President Johnson over King Boris, any day of the week. Anyone you care to name whom you think unsuitable for a presidency would be worse as a monarch.
Regret that though they may, the very fact they had the balls to do it shows why a comeback won't work.
I think a chicken and egg debate may also be relevant.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/gy_putin_dc_011718_2x3_992.jpg
It’s not completely bonkers to regard the conflict as something resembling a civil war. Another way of looking at it is through the endemic corruption in both Ukraine and Russia, post-1990. Ukrainians had had enough and Putins thugs didn’t like being denied access to the the Ukrainian cash machine. Be under no illusions, Ukraine has its own thugs, though.
There’s all sorts of angles to it. I understand only bits and pieces of the puzzle. DuraAce has a pretty good understanding of the situation, to be fair, from what I can see.
You went for an easy hit there, kle4.
Or, perhaps I could put it in your words:
Well tough, if monarchists choose to live in a very republican country like USA they have to accept the fact it has a republican government, voted for republicans and is strongly anti-monarchy and will pass republican laws
Republicanism in way more popular in monarchies than monarchism is in republics.
But that's what pretty much all expression does to some degree. And even if someone wanted to lay it on a bit thick, to be precise in how they want to signal their virue, that doesn't make it insincere, it doesn't render it meaningless, it doesn't mean those opinions are based on irrational emotion and those which are more temporate or darkly cynical are more 'correct', nor that there is something wrong with signalling some virtues on rather straightforward matters. I'm not automatically more right on a subject than someone more prone to vituperation just because I tend towards moderate expression most of the time.
It's just a kind of stereotypical teenagey angst that showing enthusiasm or emotion about something is not cool somehow, or that people are incapable of assessment if they display any overt support for one side over another.
Countries don't have to be perfect to be regarded as innocent victims. Ukraine's deficiencies are pale compared to what has been done to them, and the implicit victim-blaming here is crass if you didn't mean it and repugnant if you did.
Why do they tend to not want to?
People do not have to caveat every utterance with acknowledgement of the complexities of a situation in order to demonstrate they are not reacting like childlike lemmings.
I like Dura's no-nonsense attitude, he comes at things from a different angle and he knows the limits of his own knowledge and so doesn't expect his words to be treated as gospel, but he also likes a rough and ready approach and the 'insight' here was framed in a manner which didn't require and I expect didn't wish for a measured analysis.
You don't make comparisons of that situation to being like supporting a football team if you want to provoke measured responses. I expect he'd be disappointed if he got one.
The non-autocratic ones I think we all know the answer - if you don't already have one, there's not a great deal of benefit to creating one.
Monarchists generally wouldn't move to the US Republic either so nothing to dispute my statement or monarchists in the USA could also move to a constitutional monarchy, like say their northern neighbour Canada
In the end Boris won't be in any position to moderate Trump, and even if he promised to try, I would file it in the same round filing cabinet I'd put any other promise from that sexually incontinent windbag.
I hadn't realised adopting a republic would also see you leave the country. That's got to be worth a few votes.
Nobody wants one because they know it won't be them and then they can't get rid of them.
Also, if monarchy worked so well, we'd have way more monarchies then we do. There's a little thing going on here called selection bias that plagues this debate. Countries that have tended to be stable have preserved their monarchies. Countries that have experienced a lot of instability have shed theirs.
The crises that sweep away monarchies emerge by definition within monarchies. To credit monarchies with some magical stability is one of the maddest and ahistorical arguments you can ever see in common circulation.
But generally constitutional monarchies as we have them in Europe are more stable and more democratic than republics. We are the lucky ones.
Monarchy wasn't stable for Italy, or for Austria-Hungary, or for Spain. The early decades of last century culled them, so now you're left pointing at Denmark and Sweden and saying that, that's what monarchy looks like. Selection bias, plain as the nose on your face.
SovBot appears early for bank holiday 🤭
It was the Italian monarchy that got rid of Mussolini and the Spanish monarchy that was a bulwark against a return to dictatorship in 1974 when Franco died and again in 1980 during the attempted fascist coup. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy didn't survive a catastrophic defeat in the First World War (which it started) but many of the countries that grew out of it (e.g. Yugoslavia and Romania) set up monarchies themselves afterwards.
I think Russia would be much better off with an emblematic constitutional Tsar, around which the emotions and traditions of Russia and Russian history could be built - and a liberal democracy beneath it. I also think the same applies for a restored 'emperor' dynasty in China too.
Much better than an autocratic President, who subverts the constitution and the ballot box.
And name me a country which doesn't have its own thugs ?
Some observers were right that the doom and gloom of a recession wasn't reflecting reality. And they were right. But for that same reason we still have full employment and rising core inflation.
Policymakers in the Treasury and BoE have admitted to this wage price spiral, and so we're going to see rates go over 5% and conceivably more. Only a recession is likely to depress demand sufficiently to get inflation towards 2% rather than 5%+.
And recessions in the 12 months before an election are unlikely to boost the popularity of an already unpopular government. It will be Labour's to lose.
Category question: do we count North Korea as a monarchy these days? In pretty much every sense of the word it is. I’m wondering if there are any other countries that are republics in official form but hereditary monarchies in substance (no, political dynasties like Kennedys and bushes don’t
count).
And is there a constitutional form where there is no head of state at all, not even ceremonial? No reason there couldn’t be, but I’m not sure if it exists. Could the head of state be a legal entity - a holding company for example, or a trust, or cooperative (to sound less capitalist) in which all citizens are shareholders? The PM and cabinet therefore acting as the board in the interests of the investors. Add some non execs and voila, a national model of corporate governance.
Would be interesting to posit this sort of arrangement to voters in a poll, vs forms of presidency.
I don’t know why people get more worked up about symbolism (whether your head of State is called king or president) than the substance (whether or not you live in a free state).
Morris Dancer please explain
‘Boris Johnson has been accused of many, many things over the years. But the parties and the lies, the sleaze and the juicier scandals don’t seem to interest historians Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell much. Their central complaint in this utterly scathing account of his time at No 10 is the more fundamental one that, as they put it, he “never understood how to be prime minister, nor how to govern”; that he didn’t know what he was doing, barely bothered learning, and was so lacking in moral seriousness that even when he tried he couldn’t transcend the limitations of his “base self”…
‘The story really begins with Johnson’s response to his side winning the Brexit referendum: far from celebrating, they write, he paced the house looking “ashen-faced and distraught”, panicking aloud that: “Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen.” What weighed most heavily in his choosing leave over remain, they suggest, was his own personal ambition…
‘The book describes a prime minister alarmingly unable to focus and seemingly out of his depth, who Cummings felt should be kept out of Brexit negotiations because “he didn’t understand them”. He promoted mediocre ministers who didn’t threaten him, played rival aides off against each other, and showed shockingly little interest in major issues such as education; privately agnostic about the divisive “war on woke”, he nonetheless let his government wage it vigorously. Even those closest to him struggled to discern his real opinions…
‘The case for Johnson’s defence is usually that he got Brexit done, rolled out a Covid vaccine and stood with Ukraine. But Seldon and Newell argue that Brexit hasn’t delivered as promised, that the real vaccine heroes were the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and NHS executive Dr Emily Lawson, with the European Commission president more influential on Ukraine…
‘… it refutes the dangerous myth that Boris Johnson was foiled by a remainer establishment, rather than his own incompetence. His former chief of staff Eddie Lister declares that there is “no evidence that the civil service impeded the delivery of Brexit” and the authors conclude that if Johnson didn’t always get what he wanted from Whitehall, that’s because he led it poorly…’
https://apple.news/AhPmNOvqBQXi928SpK4vq6Q
Brexit - no plan; a poor idea badly botched by a chancer charlatan. We continue to live with the baleful consequences. It’s not surprising he and Gove were ashen faced at the the presser the day after the referendum, they knew their jolly wheeze had exploded in their faces.
He is fundamentally too lazy to be PM, he just wants the glory but none of the hard work.
Just not that sort of hard, or that sort of work.
RIP the “will AI replace lawyers?” debate (2023-2023)
Hey, lawtwitter -
Check out the last few entries on this docket. Trust me.
ChatGPT making up citations, notary fraud, this has it all. Oh and an incandescent federal judge.
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1662339628005826560
There’s not a lot of complexity about Ukraine today. It’s pretty obvious who the aggressor is.
Now, for a section of the extreme left and extreme Right, Putin is either The Man, or the guy who’s anti-western, and anyone who’s anti-western must have some good about him. But, those are not morally complex arguments.
Wait to you see the prices for the completely sold out Vegas GP..
It seems to me that the answer to this conflict is probably not in the total defeat of Russia, but in the partitioning of Ukraine, and it is better to try and get to this position in the next 18 months when Russia is at its weakest point, and Ukraine is being fully backed by the US. Russia may well come to be in an advantageous position by 2025 dependent on the outcome of the election.
Consequently, we are all still going to drown in ChatGPT-generated bullshit. Brace?
I expect what will happen is that there will be judges in future who aren't as pedantic or diligent, and bullshit citations created by ChatGPT will be accepted as true, entered into the Court record, and subsequently copied by others. In the future there will be two types of lawyers. There will be the lawyers who use ChatGPT to generate copious reams of bullshit, and there will be the lawyers who struggle vainly to shovel that bullshit out of the way.
Choose your side.
Mr. Roger, anyone daft enough to subject themselves to the worst circuit on the calendar is liable to pay a special tax on it.
As an aside, no qualifying tip. Considered Sainz and Perez, too sleepy to decide.
For some tasks, creating art or fiction or certain sorts of journalism, that doesn't matter much. (Joining the threads together, see the journalistic career of Boris.) And the ability to make a dozen possibilities cheaply and in minutes is a boon. Take these rather lovely AI attempts at town planning;
https://twitter.com/createstreets/status/1662076814431342596
But if reality matters in a task, AI is worse than useless.
If you thought the tickets were expensive wait until you see the hotel prices.
I reckon demand would fall if you banned all the escorts.
2) What question is Piers Corbyn the answer to?
3) Pineapple on pizza - warcrime?
That it's only good enough for some tasks isn't a measure if its potential.
Winnie-the-Pooh book teaches Texas kids to ‘run, hide, fight’ in a shooting
Stay Safe book, produced by a law enforcement consulting firm in Houston, was sent home in backpacks of children
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/25/winnie-the-pooh-books-teaches-texas-kids-run-hide-fight-shooting
We sure he is a Russian bot? And not one of the NatC speakers? TBH I look at some of the GBeebies people on Twitter and they don't sound much different.
That is AI.