Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
That’s not what the court said. We’ve provided multiple links where you can check this stuff.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
That’s not what the court said. We’ve provided multiple links where you can check this stuff.
@HYUFD is a nice, polite, Christian man, who believes in good morality. I can’t believe he would ignore the friendly notes from others that he may have misunderstood an issue just a little bit.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Natalie Fahy @nat_fahy · 3h Our court lists show Valdo Calocane was due to appear in September 2022 for assault of an emergency worker. He failed to show, a warrant was issued for his arrest...but he was never tracked down.
@HYUFD — This is from the Crown Prosecution Service:
“There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.”
' A woman seeking housing in east London who alleged racial discrimination when a housing charity reserved its properties for Orthodox Jewish people has lost her case at the supreme court...
In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010, in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance.' https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/16/uk-supreme-court-backs-housing-charitys-jewish-only-rule
Thats an interesting case, thanks for posting it. Was there a particular reason you posted it? It doesn’t prove you right.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Clarke cannot really think that he is going to succeed in removing Sunak before the General Election. This is about preparing to pin the blame on Sunak for the General Election defeat as part of a strategy to move the party further to the right in opposition.
That’s the only rational explanation, other than presuming score setting from team Boris.
Frost is there, the telegraph in the mix, it suggests Team Boris up to something? What if Boris wanted to return to the commons at the General Election, and to do so meant taking some leverage over Rishi before the negotiation, the leverage being an offer Rishi can’t refuse like we can call off the attack in an instant. Is that what this “game” is meant to deliver, a constituency for Boris?
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
That’s not what the court said. We’ve provided multiple links where you can check this stuff.
@HYUFD is a nice, polite, Christian man, who believes in good morality. I can’t believe he would ignore the friendly notes from others that he may have misunderstood an issue just a little bit.
He is but he is just impossible to persuade to an alternative argument no matter the evidence
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
We quiver in fear at the prospect of the way and the light returning to her rightful throne.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
Just chosen a random home video tape to watch, and it's walking around Toronto on 7th July 1997. (Someone helpfully said so on the video). I wonder if anyone on YouTube would be interested if I posted it on there? Probably not.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
People thought Sunak was the answer. He wasn’t.
Changing leader now is like buying a shiny new tracksuit the day before a marathon race, to cover up the fact you’ve not trained and been on the booze for 5 years.
I tried to find some early 2019 PB threads, from when I was on a hiatus from the site… where better than some late 2018 predictions from Alastair Meeks
Not having a dig at Alastair, he got 3/5 right, but neither he, nor anyone in comments underneath suggested anything like what eventually happened. So things can change, the unexpected occurs, it’s an extremely volatile business lately. The best thing the Tories can do is somehow get Bojo back; their 2019 voters actually like him, he was the PM people voted for. How I don’t know, but it’s their only hope
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
Oh read the judgment for heaven's sake instead of pretending, as always, that you know more about the law than the Supreme Court.
Given some of its recent judgements, maybe I do
Have we reached 'Peak HYUFD'?
One can only approach Peak HYUFD asymptotically, never achieve it. He inspires us to greater and greater heights, until the epiphany is achieved: this is the Tao of HYUFD.
In comparison to NH in Iowa the exit poll there had 9 out of 10 saying conservative, roughly two thirds denying Biden won and just under half saying they were Maga .
In NH they also asked about abortion. A majority would oppose a federal ban on most abortions .
You know you're struggling to depose of the Prime Minister when the leader of the coup is a backbench MP who isn't even recognised by most people who spend their free time posting on a political betting website...
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
There is a serious point to be made by Goodwin: he could point out that a large number of people who become British citizens end up in social housing, and seek to understand the reasons.
Are these the same citizen or immigrants as are boosting our economy? Getting subsidised housing and disproportionate benefits on the back of larger families? Something doesn't quite compute.
I suspect it's a bit of a barbell: quite a few very high income new citizens, and lots of very low income ones, with not that many in the middle.
@HYUFD — This is from the Crown Prosecution Service:
“There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.”
' A woman seeking housing in east London who alleged racial discrimination when a housing charity reserved its properties for Orthodox Jewish people has lost her case at the supreme court...
In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010, in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance.' https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/16/uk-supreme-court-backs-housing-charitys-jewish-only-rule
Thats an interesting case, thanks for posting it. Was there a particular reason you posted it? It doesn’t prove you right.
It proves Judaism can be a matter of religious observance of the Jewish faith
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Yes, I'd agree. The Tories did a mega brand trashing: Brexit, Boris, Truss. Toryism is no longer a concept associated with anything other than the bringing chaos, stupidity and misery. How can any future leader counter that?
I tried to find some early 2019 PB threads, from when I was on a hiatus from the site… where better than some late 2018 predictions from Alastair Meeks
Not having a dig at Alastair, he got 3/5 right, but neither he, nor anyone in comments underneath suggested anything like what eventually happened. So things can change, the unexpected occurs, it’s an extremely volatile business lately. The best thing the Tories can do is somehow get Bojo back; their 2019 voters actually like him, he was the PM people voted for. How I don’t know, but it’s their only hope
They have to get an MP in a very safe, leave inclined seat to resign, parachute Boris in and hand him the leadership
It is shit or bust, and their only hope
Give that MP the pick of seats where incumbents are stepping down, or a golden handshake
In comparison to NH in Iowa the exit poll there had 9 out of 10 saying conservative, roughly two thirds denying Biden won and just under half saying they were Maga .
In NH they also asked about abortion. A majority would oppose a federal ban on most abortions .
Based on the exits, NH looks close to 50% Trump 50% Haley potentially.
Which would be a big boost to Haley and a blow to Trump even if he scraped home after his big Iowa win
Speaking of short people: Recently I have been thinking about Africa's pygmies. As I understand it, they are not always treated kindly by their neighbors in central Africa. Perhaps a private group should start making the argument that at least some pygmies deserve US refugee status. Even if they all don't have PhDs in computer science, and/or great wealth.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
I was very confused... when you wrote "rowing", I had this image of them on the Thames in a little boat.
More seriously, is there any actual evidence that libertarians are more likely to get divorced?
I tried to find some early 2019 PB threads, from when I was on a hiatus from the site… where better than some late 2018 predictions from Alastair Meeks
Not having a dig at Alastair, he got 3/5 right, but neither he, nor anyone in comments underneath suggested anything like what eventually happened. So things can change, the unexpected occurs, it’s an extremely volatile business lately. The best thing the Tories can do is somehow get Bojo back; their 2019 voters actually like him, he was the PM people voted for. How I don’t know, but it’s their only hope
They have to get an MP in a very safe, leave inclined seat to resign, parachute Boris in and hand him the leadership
It is shit or bust, and their only hope
Give that MP the pick of seats where incumbents are stepping down, or a golden handshake
Two parody posts in tandem. You are on fire! Johnson indeed, comedy gold!
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
What time do results start coming through from NH? (Excluding Dixville Notch).
Polls are now closing in most of New Hampshire, though a in a few towns (don't know which ones) polls are open for another hour, until 8pm local.
Results should start coming in shortly, from small towns with small numbers of voters.
Others will take longer, especially if there's still a line of people who showed up on time, but have yet to vote.
NOTE that some towns, maybe most, will count Republican primary ballots first, then Democratic, due to need to scrutinize and count Democratic write-ins for Biden.
What time do results start coming through from NH? (Excluding Dixville Notch).
Polls - I think - close at 7pm or 8pm (i.e. now or 1am). I would therefore expect us to start seeing results coming through in the next 25 minutes or so.
In comparison to NH in Iowa the exit poll there had 9 out of 10 saying conservative, roughly two thirds denying Biden won and just under half saying they were Maga .
In NH they also asked about abortion. A majority would oppose a federal ban on most abortions .
The abortion issue is the Democrats most potent mobiliser and they have to keep raising it
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
Oh read the judgment for heaven's sake instead of pretending, as always, that you know more about the law than the Supreme Court.
Given some of its recent judgements, maybe I do
Have we reached 'Peak HYUFD'?
One can only approach Peak HYUFD asymptotically, never achieve it. He inspires us to greater and greater heights, until the epiphany is achieved: this is the Tao of HYUFD.
In comparison to NH in Iowa the exit poll there had 9 out of 10 saying conservative, roughly two thirds denying Biden won and just under half saying they were Maga .
In NH they also asked about abortion. A majority would oppose a federal ban on most abortions .
The abortion issue is the Democrats most potent mobiliser and they have to keep raising it
What time do results start coming through from NH? (Excluding Dixville Notch).
Polls are now closing in most of New Hampshire, though a in a few towns (don't know which ones) polls are open for another hour, until 8pm local.
Results should start coming in shortly, from small towns with small numbers of voters.
Others will take longer, especially if there's still a line of people who showed up on time, but have yet to vote.
NOTE that some towns, maybe most, will count Republican primary ballots first, then Democratic, due to need to scrutinize and count Democratic write-ins for Biden.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
I never said that. I think discriminating against anyone is wrong.
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
PS as others have said it was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated. Those of the Jewish race at the time were predominantly of the Jewish religion too, but they were all targeted regardless of religion.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
It was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated.
I never said that. I think discriminating against anyone is wrong.
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
'Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.'
So in your own words you think discriminating against the religious is fine, including discriminating against them based on their right to practice their faith
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
What kind of world do you live in where the father divorcing the mother leaves her near destitute? That's not how divorce works in this country and men haven't been the "breadwinner" in this country for decades.
If the father is a piece of shit who'll abandon his kids then good riddance to him.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
It was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated.
I never said that. I think discriminating against anyone is wrong.
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
'Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.'
So in your own words you think discriminating against the religious is fine, including discriminating against them based on their right to practice their faith
No.
Yours are not words I said. I think discriminating against people based on their religion is wrong.
I also think the state should not be involved in all decisions of right or wrong.
The state protecting characteristics people are born with is more justifiable to me than protecting personal choices.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
It was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated.
I never said that. I think discriminating against anyone is wrong.
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
'Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.'
So in your own words you think discriminating against the religious is fine, including discriminating against them based on their right to practice their faith
I don't think there should be any "protected characteristics". Everyone should be entirely equal before the law.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
It was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated.
I never said that. I think discriminating against anyone is wrong.
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
'Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.'
So in your own words you think discriminating against the religious is fine, including discriminating against them based on their right to practice their faith
No.
Yours are not words I said. I think discriminating against people based on their religion is wrong.
I also think the state should not be involved in all decisions of right or wrong.
The state protecting characteristics people are born with is more justifiable to me than protecting personal choices.
So as I said you are fine discriminating against people based on their practice of their faith
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
It was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated.
I never said that. I think discriminating against anyone is wrong.
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
'Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.'
So in your own words you think discriminating against the religious is fine, including discriminating against them based on their right to practice their faith
No.
Yours are not words I said. I think discriminating against people based on their religion is wrong.
I also think the state should not be involved in all decisions of right or wrong.
The state protecting characteristics people are born with is more justifiable to me than protecting personal choices.
So as I said you are fine discriminating against people based on their practice of their faith
These are ticker tape results from the ballot counting machines, first time ever I've seen a result "declaration" in the US
In NH the primary is officially part of a town meeting (old Yankee institution) and so they often have the town head poobah (NOT official title!) announce the results as tabulated by town clerk & staff.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
What kind of world do you live in where the father divorcing the mother leaves her near destitute? That's not how divorce works in this country and men haven't been the "breadwinner" in this country for decades.
If the father is a piece of shit who'll abandon his kids then good riddance to him.
Exactly the kind of world my father grew up in and not all married women work or ever have done.
Plenty of fathers also abandon their kids and disappear never to be seen again rather than committing to marriage
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
Look, I'm just trying to understand my options here.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
What kind of world do you live in where the father divorcing the mother leaves her near destitute? That's not how divorce works in this country and men haven't been the "breadwinner" in this country for decades.
If the father is a piece of shit who'll abandon his kids then good riddance to him.
Exactly the kind of world my father grew up in and not all married women work or ever have done.
Plenty of fathers also abandon their kids and disappear never to be seen again rather than committing to marriage
Good riddance to them then. Shit fathers from the sound of it.
Why would you want shit fathers to stick around?
Would you prefer it if they remained around in an unhappy marriage, with him openly screwing whoever he wants, showing no regard to his children or his wife while remaining at home leaving her and the kids miserable and unable to move on without him?
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child.
It goes back to the original point that if you make marriage vows you stick to them not just jump on the next round of lust to whoever takes your fancy
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child
But is he happy?
I couldn't care less, he had made vows of marriage and should have stuck to them
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child.
It goes back to the original point that if you make marriage vows you stick to them not just jump on the next round of lust to whoever takes your fancy
Wait a second, did he have a new lover before or after the divorce?
Because you implied before it was adultery during marriage, not after divorce.
If he got married, then divorced, then met someone, then fair enough and the new lover has nothing to do with the divorce. If he got married, then got a new lover, then got a divorce, then the divorce is because the marriage broke down - it didn't cause it. The breakdown had already happened the moment he got a new lover.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Speaking (if we must) of divorce, it was Nelson Rockefeller's divorce of his first wife and subsequent marriage to his second wife - who gave up custody of her four young children - that derailed his 1964 Presidential campaign.
It was certainly a factor in his coming in 2nd in the 1964 NH Republican primary, behind a write-in candidate: former Mass Gov. and US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, a fellow moderate GOP rich guy politico and poster child for the Eastern Establishment.
His marital status also contributed to his decisive loss to Barry Goldwater in the California primary, which effectively won the GOP nomination for AuH20.
Interesting to note that just two years later, in 1966, Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried man, was nominated by Republicans and elected Governor of California. Putting him in poll position to advance the Conservative Revolution launched by Goldwater, and ride that wave all the way to the White House.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Comments
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Natalie Fahy
@nat_fahy
·
3h
Our court lists show Valdo Calocane was due to appear in September 2022 for assault of an emergency worker. He failed to show, a warrant was issued for his arrest...but he was never tracked down.
https://twitter.com/nat_fahy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel
Frost is there, the telegraph in the mix, it suggests Team Boris up to something? What if Boris wanted to return to the commons at the General Election, and to do so meant taking some leverage over Rishi before the negotiation, the leverage being an offer Rishi can’t refuse like we can call off the attack in an instant. Is that what this “game” is meant to deliver, a constituency for Boris?
This is looking like a Tory landslide. Who is the unnamed Tory PM? A job share between Ant and Dec?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
Who is this saviour I hear you say?
I can say no more.
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
Short of something out of the clouds, they will lose by a fair margin no matter.
Just chosen a random home video tape to watch, and it's walking around Toronto on 7th July 1997. (Someone helpfully said so on the video). I wonder if anyone on YouTube would be interested if I posted it on there? Probably not.
……..
Changing leader now is like buying a shiny new tracksuit the day before a marathon race, to cover up the fact you’ve not trained and been on the booze for 5 years.
I tried to find some early 2019 PB threads, from when I was on a hiatus from the site… where better than some late 2018 predictions from Alastair Meeks
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/26/with-just-five-days-to-go-the-pb-alastair-meeks-predictions-for-2019/
Not having a dig at Alastair, he got 3/5 right, but neither he, nor anyone in comments underneath suggested anything like what eventually happened. So things can change, the unexpected occurs, it’s an extremely volatile business lately. The best thing the Tories can do is somehow get Bojo back; their 2019 voters actually like him, he was the PM people voted for. How I don’t know, but it’s their only hope
In NH they also asked about abortion. A majority would oppose a federal ban on most abortions .
I suspect this all blows over.
That poll is yet more proof that hypothetical surveys are worthless.
It is shit or bust, and their only hope
Give that MP the pick of seats where incumbents are stepping down, or a golden handshake
Which would be a big boost to Haley and a blow to Trump even if he scraped home after his big Iowa win
More seriously, is there any actual evidence that libertarians are more likely to get divorced?
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
Results should start coming in shortly, from small towns with small numbers of voters.
Others will take longer, especially if there's still a line of people who showed up on time, but have yet to vote.
NOTE that some towns, maybe most, will count Republican primary ballots first, then Democratic, due to need to scrutinize and count Democratic write-ins for Biden.
I'm putting on a very small, totally speculative, bet on Nikki Haley to win New Hampshire.
@CorrectHorseBattery predicting a hung parliament and the red wall staying Red
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/12/general-election-2019-the-pb-guide-to-election-night/
Hi Nigel!
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
But beliefs are a matter of personal choice, not a characteristic you're born with, and the state should not be involved with that.
PS as others have said it was those of the Jewish race he primarily exterminated. Those of the Jewish race at the time were predominantly of the Jewish religion too, but they were all targeted regardless of religion.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
Trump 467
Concord ward 6
@Redistrict
Based on the initial precincts reporting, this isn't going to be a total Trump blowout."
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1749948412110254359
Nikki Haley
2,379 54.2%
Donald J. Trump
1,983 45.2%
Ron DeSantis
28 0.6%
Total reported
4,390
Source NYT
So in your own words you think discriminating against the religious is fine, including discriminating against them based on their right to practice their faith
Trump 1.03 / 1.08
Haley 16 / 44
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.223236887
If the father is a piece of shit who'll abandon his kids then good riddance to him.
Trump 1169
Manchester ward 6
These are ticker tape results from the ballot counting machines, first time ever I've seen a result "declaration" in the US.
Looks like the ballots are scanned on entry and then the results spool out on the ticker tape once voting closes - very impressive.
Unprocessed Write-Ins (mostly for Joe Biden)
1,396 74.6%
Dean Phillips
414 22.1%
Marianne Williamson
61 3.3%
Total reported
1,871
Yours are not words I said. I think discriminating against people based on their religion is wrong.
I also think the state should not be involved in all decisions of right or wrong.
The state protecting characteristics people are born with is more justifiable to me than protecting personal choices.
Plenty of fathers also abandon their kids and disappear never to be seen again rather than committing to marriage
> Haley is winning (so far) in Concord, Dover (U of NH), Keene, Portsmouth
> Trump is winning (ditto) in Claremont, Laconia, Manchester (biggest city)
@Redistrict
I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R).
12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1749950152381493252
Why would you want shit fathers to stick around?
Would you prefer it if they remained around in an unhappy marriage, with him openly screwing whoever he wants, showing no regard to his children or his wife while remaining at home leaving her and the kids miserable and unable to move on without him?
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
It goes back to the original point that if you make marriage vows you stick to them not just jump on the next round of lust to whoever takes your fancy
Because you implied before it was adultery during marriage, not after divorce.
If he got married, then divorced, then met someone, then fair enough and the new lover has nothing to do with the divorce.
If he got married, then got a new lover, then got a divorce, then the divorce is because the marriage broke down - it didn't cause it. The breakdown had already happened the moment he got a new lover.
For shame.
17,498
Nikki Haley 47.5%
16,127
It was certainly a factor in his coming in 2nd in the 1964 NH Republican primary, behind a write-in candidate: former Mass Gov. and US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, a fellow moderate GOP rich guy politico and poster child for the Eastern Establishment.
His marital status also contributed to his decisive loss to Barry Goldwater in the California primary, which effectively won the GOP nomination for AuH20.
Interesting to note that just two years later, in 1966, Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried man, was nominated by Republicans and elected Governor of California. Putting him in poll position to advance the Conservative Revolution launched by Goldwater, and ride that wave all the way to the White House.