Though of course Chinese batteries and cars as much as European cars will be hit by Trump's tariffs on imports to US
I don't give two hoots about that. We need domestic manufacturing capacity.
In that respect will be interesting to see if Trump's massive 60% tariffs on Chinese imports boost US manufacturing capacity again while avoiding big price rises for consumers. If they do the UK and EU will likely follow suit and also impose bigger tariffs on Chinese imports
Something to make PB's public-sector* antagonists' heads explode: just been trying to apply for paternity leave and it looks like the University now offers six weeks at full pay (to be taken in any combination within 12 months of birth). Last time I applied, in 2022, it was the standard two weeks, albeit with one week boosted to full pay and the other at statutory.
*actually private-sector, ish, depends how you see universities I guess.
ETA: I'll still be expected to meet the same targets in terms of publications and funding though, I'm sure!
25-30 days of leave is fairly standard in good private sector jobs. Working days that is - not including bank holidays.
He’s talking paternity leave not holiday.
Minimum for me would be 5 weeks and ideally 28/30 before bank holidays
I really can't think what anyone would do with that 5 weeks except drive your poor wife to distraction.
6 weeks.
If the birth goes well then, with my wife's parents nearby and supportive, 2-3 weeks is doable post-birth (I've generally taken the two weeks and then added just a few days annual leave to go up to a weekend, previously. But this will enable me to offer a lot more support over school holidays in the first few months where things that can be done with a baby in tow can be limited and the other three will get some quality time with us/me/my wife. It will be a headache fitting in that much leave with my pre-existing research grants though - ideally they'd automatically extend too, but it's not that simple and my team won't be taking equivalent time off.
I’d have taken off all the time I was allowed to. Not because I enjoy spending time with babies, but because looking after your first baby takes up literally all of one parent’s waking time, but that parent then has no time to look after themselves; that then becomes the job of the second parent. Looking after a subsequent baby is easier, but to counter that there are existing children to look after. This goes on for weeks on end. It doesn’t really stop being a massive joyless slog until you’re about 8 weeks in. (It’s less joyless the second and third time around because you have larger children to keep you distracted.) Babies are awful. Children are great, but babies are awful.
In all honesty, I disagree about babies being awful. The first few days are really hard until they get the hang of sleeping a bit, but I've very fond memories of paternity leave, particularly with our first. Two adults, one baby, nothing else going on - it really was quite a wondrous time. I remember us both watching TV with a sleeping baby during paternity leave and then pausing it for twenty minutes just to watch him as he went though the process of waking up, utterly mesmerised.
With subsequent babies it's been harder, number two in particular we didn't manage so well as we started off with me on the older child and my wife on the baby, which - breastfeeding - made some sense, but we both felt we were missing out, me on baby time and my wife on her relationship with our eldest. Third one we got a bit better at managing that. Hopefully this time we'll perfect it
On babies, I've known several men who don't really find much joy/connection in a baby before about six months, when they interact in more purposeful ways, but I've never felt that way.
ETA: I should note we've been reasonably lucky so far with babies and sleep. Waking has been mostly for feeding and sleep, after feeding, generally straightforward. With the odd run of terrible nights for teething or a bug, of course.
Yes, that differentiates not awful from pretty awful. Worth it, but jeez, it was hard work for a while. I don't think my ability to sleep through the night has ever recovered.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
Something to make PB's public-sector* antagonists' heads explode: just been trying to apply for paternity leave and it looks like the University now offers six weeks at full pay (to be taken in any combination within 12 months of birth). Last time I applied, in 2022, it was the standard two weeks, albeit with one week boosted to full pay and the other at statutory.
*actually private-sector, ish, depends how you see universities I guess.
ETA: I'll still be expected to meet the same targets in terms of publications and funding though, I'm sure!
25-30 days of leave is fairly standard in good private sector jobs. Working days that is - not including bank holidays.
He’s talking paternity leave not holiday.
Minimum for me would be 5 weeks and ideally 28/30 before bank holidays
I really can't think what anyone would do with that 5 weeks except drive your poor wife to distraction.
6 weeks.
If the birth goes well then, with my wife's parents nearby and supportive, 2-3 weeks is doable post-birth (I've generally taken the two weeks and then added just a few days annual leave to go up to a weekend, previously. But this will enable me to offer a lot more support over school holidays in the first few months where things that can be done with a baby in tow can be limited and the other three will get some quality time with us/me/my wife. It will be a headache fitting in that much leave with my pre-existing research grants though - ideally they'd automatically extend too, but it's not that simple and my team won't be taking equivalent time off.
I’d have taken off all the time I was allowed to. Not because I enjoy spending time with babies, but because looking after your first baby takes up literally all of one parent’s waking time, but that parent then has no time to look after themselves; that then becomes the job of the second parent. Looking after a subsequent baby is easier, but to counter that there are existing children to look after. This goes on for weeks on end. It doesn’t really stop being a massive joyless slog until you’re about 8 weeks in. (It’s less joyless the second and third time around because you have larger children to keep you distracted.) Babies are awful. Children are great, but babies are awful.
With ours I remember walking to the car with him in a basket, very hot day, taking him home after his birth in a Sydney hospital and thinking, "gosh, look at him, what a responsibility we have here now." Fortunately my wife proved up to it.
When my wife had our first child I remember having breakfast on my own in the hospital canteen the next morning and I don't think I have ever felt happier.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
Putin can’t accept Ukraine in NATO.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
Aren't the "big threats" just part of some empty choreography so Trump can sell (to his own voters) whatever shit deal he makes with Putin as a great victory?
Maybe. It depends how desperate Putin is for a deal. Yemenis are the latest nationality to find themselves coerced into fighting for Russia's army, as Putin continues to avoid conscription in the Muscovy core.
Putin may feel that he's tantalisingly close to finally breaking the Ukrainian ability to resist, and six more months would see his army in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk and Zaporizhzhia.
Surely Putin can't do a deal that leaves part of Kursk in Ukrainian hands. Is he willing to trade land? I'd doubt it. If the Russians succeed in retaking Kursk before inauguration, then they'd be quite confident about making further advances. Why then freeze the conflict?
It would need a big threat to convince Putin to abandon his maximalist demands.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
Putin can’t accept Ukraine in NATO.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
Aren't the "big threats" just part of some empty choreography so Trump can sell (to his own voters) whatever shit deal he makes with Putin as a great victory?
No idea. Quite probable that Trump doesn’t know what he will do. On of Trumps picks has apparently suggested that Russia (as well as Ukraine) will be forced to the negotiating table.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
That would make Biden's "Kabul moment" seem like a masterly strategic withdrawal.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
Putin can’t accept Ukraine in NATO.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
Aren't the "big threats" just part of some empty choreography so Trump can sell (to his own voters) whatever shit deal he makes with Putin as a great victory?
Ukraine has been draining the lifeblood out of Russia for over a thousand days. This has enabled USA to clear their stocks of older weapons and replace them with newer, better ones. Arms manufacturers and their workers are all richer as a result. The balance of military advantage has swung decisively in Washington's favour without a single US shot being fired or life being lost. After a few more years the Russian economy will be in ruins and they'll won't be able to afford to maintain their nuclear arsenal. Why would any sane US president want to end the war quickly when it's all going their way?
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
Putin can’t accept Ukraine in NATO.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
Aren't the "big threats" just part of some empty choreography so Trump can sell (to his own voters) whatever shit deal he makes with Putin as a great victory?
Ukraine has been draining the lifeblood out of Russia for over a thousand days. This has enabled USA to clear their stocks of older weapons and replace them with newer, better ones. Arms manufacturers and their workers are all richer as a result. The balance of military advantage has swung decisively in Washington's favour without a single US shot being fired or life being lost. After a few more years the Russian economy will be in ruins and they'll won't be able to afford to maintain their nuclear arsenal. Why would any sane US president want to end the war quickly when it's all going their way?
It is difficult to disagree with this analysis with the exception that it will enhance their soft power for the US to be peacemakers in eastern Europe.
Before PB turns into Mumsnet can we please refocus on why the dems lost to Trump the other day ham recipies.
The discussion has important implications for the GE in eighteen thirty-eight years
If academia is embracing more child-friendly policies then the woke liberal babies will be in the majority soon enough. Unless they rebel against their woke liberal parents of course
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
That would make Biden's "Kabul moment" seem like a masterly strategic withdrawal.
In old-fashioned negotiations over land, Russia would be expected to give up something else in compensation. Trump could see if they're willing to cede Kaliningrad.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
Putin can’t accept Ukraine in NATO.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
Aren't the "big threats" just part of some empty choreography so Trump can sell (to his own voters) whatever shit deal he makes with Putin as a great victory?
Ukraine has been draining the lifeblood out of Russia for over a thousand days. This has enabled USA to clear their stocks of older weapons and replace them with newer, better ones. Arms manufacturers and their workers are all richer as a result. The balance of military advantage has swung decisively in Washington's favour without a single US shot being fired or life being lost. After a few more years the Russian economy will be in ruins and they'll won't be able to afford to maintain their nuclear arsenal. Why would any sane US president want to end the war quickly when it's all going their way?
Contrary to your cynicism, sane Presidents care about people not dying or suffering, they care about justice, they care about preserving the international order, etc. Any sane President wants the war to end soon, but not necessarily on any terms or any cost. Any sane US President also recognises that decisions about Ukraine are ultimately for the Ukrainians to take.
Not that there will be a sane US President soon. Trump doesn’t have a plan beyond believing in his own greatness and hating the Ukrainians for not providing fake information on Hunter Biden.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
Why do I have a feeling Viktor Orban has had some input into this proposed peace plan?
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
A brief search indicates that the brand name predates the mycoprotein product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn The brand Quorn was first marketed in 1985 by Marlow Foods (named after Rank Hovis McDougall's headquarters in Marlow, Buckinghamshire), a joint venture between RHM and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which provided a fermenter left vacant from their abandoned single-cell feed programme.[13] The two partners invested in patents for growing and processing the fungus, and other intellectual properties in the brand.[citation needed] The name of the product was taken from a trademark owned by RHM. This trademark was previously used for a range of instant food packets named after the Quorn Hunt, which in turn derives from the Leicestershire village of Quorn.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
That would make Biden's "Kabul moment" seem like a masterly strategic withdrawal.
In old-fashioned negotiations over land, Russia would be expected to give up something else in compensation. Trump could see if they're willing to cede Kaliningrad.
Ukraine long since developed a two word response to such proposals.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
Well neither Zelensky nor NATO could ever agree to that so it is dead in the water. I doubt even Trump would agree to hand Kyiv over to Putin either
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Wiki suggests that both are named after a placename. A somewhat more prosaic explanation, alas.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
So ham pasta bake is good for 0.6 people out of Starmer's wife and two kids then?
You have a very reductive understanding of statistics too.
Well there's three Jewish people in his family and one in five Jews eat pork. I think my understanding of statistics is better than your understanding of population growth metrics.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Wiki suggests that both are named after a placename. A somewhat more prosaic explanation, alas.
Indeed. The Vegan Finder Generals and their helpers really are out in force today.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
I must admit I assumed I was inventing "Quorn Hunters Chicken". But... no?
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
A brief search indicates that the brand name predates the mycoprotein product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn The brand Quorn was first marketed in 1985 by Marlow Foods (named after Rank Hovis McDougall's headquarters in Marlow, Buckinghamshire), a joint venture between RHM and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which provided a fermenter left vacant from their abandoned single-cell feed programme.[13] The two partners invested in patents for growing and processing the fungus, and other intellectual properties in the brand.[citation needed] The name of the product was taken from a trademark owned by RHM. This trademark was previously used for a range of instant food packets named after the Quorn Hunt, which in turn derives from the Leicestershire village of Quorn.
Oh. So it was ultimately named after the Hunt. Fascinating.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
An octogenarian Trump would likely end up running against a hyper-energised Barack Obama. Not sure if even the Donald would fancy his chances in those circs.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
So ham pasta bake is good for 0.6 people out of Starmer's wife and two kids then?
You have a very reductive understanding of statistics too.
Well there's three Jewish people in his family and one in five Jews eat pork. I think my understanding of statistics is better than your understanding of population growth metrics.
Your stats are however unsound. Because you assume independence of events - which does not apply in a family.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
A brief search indicates that the brand name predates the mycoprotein product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn The brand Quorn was first marketed in 1985 by Marlow Foods (named after Rank Hovis McDougall's headquarters in Marlow, Buckinghamshire), a joint venture between RHM and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which provided a fermenter left vacant from their abandoned single-cell feed programme.[13] The two partners invested in patents for growing and processing the fungus, and other intellectual properties in the brand.[citation needed] The name of the product was taken from a trademark owned by RHM. This trademark was previously used for a range of instant food packets named after the Quorn Hunt, which in turn derives from the Leicestershire village of Quorn.
Oh. So it was ultimately named after the Hunt. Fascinating.
But not when they made mycoprotein or stuff for vegans. More than half a century before.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
That would make Biden's "Kabul moment" seem like a masterly strategic withdrawal.
In old-fashioned negotiations over land, Russia would be expected to give up something else in compensation. Trump could see if they're willing to cede Kaliningrad.
Ukraine long since developed a two word response to such proposals.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Something ridiculous like 30% of all people with my surname live in and around Quorn. There’s even a street named after us. I’ve not been there myself but my father has, on a self-guided DIY who-do-you-think-you-are expedition that also took in Liverpool, London and Cologne.
My ancestor, a stout Yeoman of Quorn, was lucky enough to employ the several times winner of the local ploughing competition back in the 17th century. That’s about as exciting as the WDYTYA revelations got.
I've been fairly critical of Starmer on here, but if this conversation is an example of the best the 'Conservatives' can do, then he's going to be PM for many, many decades.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
It says you can't be elected. It doesn't say you can't be inaugurated, or that you're ineligible to be President, or that you can't be nominated. You just can't be elected.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Something ridiculous like 30% of all people with my surname live in and around Quorn. There’s even a street named after us. I’ve not been there myself but my father has, on a self-guided DIY who-do-you-think-you-are expedition that also took in Liverpool, London and Cologne.
My ancestor, a stout Yeoman of Quorn, was lucky enough to employ the several times winner of the local ploughing competition back in the 17th century. That’s about as exciting as the WDYTYA revelations got.
Nice part of the world - Charnwood Forest certainly has an atmosphere. (I once had a few days, out of curiosity, at Mt St Bernard Abbey, going with a fellow student who wanted to visit his mentor there - fascinating to see a real live abbey, and good walks too.)
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Wiki suggests that both are named after a placename. A somewhat more prosaic explanation, alas.
Not at all. The Quorn Hunt was named because it was founded near/at Quorn in Leics. That is how all hunts are named. Over 200 years ago. Since that time it (the Quorn Hunt) has become one of the most famous in the UK. 40-odd years ago some marketing whizzkid thought they would use the already trademarked name "Quorn" (itself deriving from the Quorn Hunt) as the name for a veggie food.
This was either through ignorance or intent. If the former it is laughable, if the latter it is a very good joke.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
It says you can't be elected. It doesn't say you can't be inaugurated, or that you're ineligible to be President, or that you can't be nominated. You just can't be elected.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
His name couldn't be on the ballot by definition as that would be standing for election. Given the 2026 midterms would likely see Democrats win back Congress they would of course immediately move to impeach Trump if that was even attempted
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
Not everyone is as well up on persecuting small species of canids as you are, or Wodehouse comedies and Aunt Dahlia, tbf. The stuff's been on sale for decades and the name to 99% of punters evoked, well, rusticity, Farmer TimS chewing a grass stalk and scratching his smock as he take a break from harvesting the mushrooms from Parsonage Meadow.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
An octogenarian Trump would likely end up running against a hyper-energised Barack Obama. Not sure if even the Donald would fancy his chances in those circs.
Yes in the extremely unlikely circumstance Trump managed to change the constitution to run for a 3rd term, Obama would almost certainly be the Democrat nominee to run against him in 2028
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
A brief search indicates that the brand name predates the mycoprotein product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn The brand Quorn was first marketed in 1985 by Marlow Foods (named after Rank Hovis McDougall's headquarters in Marlow, Buckinghamshire), a joint venture between RHM and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which provided a fermenter left vacant from their abandoned single-cell feed programme.[13] The two partners invested in patents for growing and processing the fungus, and other intellectual properties in the brand.[citation needed] The name of the product was taken from a trademark owned by RHM. This trademark was previously used for a range of instant food packets named after the Quorn Hunt, which in turn derives from the Leicestershire village of Quorn.
Oh. So it was ultimately named after the Hunt. Fascinating.
But not when they made mycoprotein or stuff for vegans. More than half a century before.
What are you talking about. Quorn the place gave rise to The Quorn Hunt a couple of hundred years ago. Someone trademarked a foodstuff company and called it after the Quorn Hunt. All the mycoprotein and veggie and vegan stuff was therefore ultimately named after the Quorn Hunt.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
Wtf is a ham pasta bake? Sounds grim. Also no favourite Xmas movie?! Home Alone is an easy choice for anyone who's got kids or been a kid, so everyone ever.
Easily answered. Macaroni cheese, with added bits of ham in it, browned in the oven, is an example.
But why would anyone use ham instead of bacon for that? Ham brings nothing to the table, it's the proverbial knife in a gun fight in that kind of dish.
Some people do. Think of croques monsieur. And it may be a variety of ham which is more like bacon in UK terms.
I'm astounded at how PB righties will seek to pick complaints about any pol who isn't a Tory ...
It's coz ham pasta bake is a fucking horrible choice
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
Not everyone is as well up on persecuting small species of canids as you are, or Wodehouse comedies and Aunt Dahlia, tbf. The stuff's been on sale for decades and the name to 99% of punters evoked, well, rusticity, Farmer TimS chewing a grass stalk and scratching his smock as he take a break from harvesting the mushrooms from Parsonage Meadow.
Which is why it is so funny. It's like calling a new brand of bandage the "Pol Pot". I'm sure plenty (and an increasing number) of people have no idea who Pol Pot is or was but forgive me for finding it amusing that one of the foremost veggie brands is named after a fox hunt.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Wiki suggests that both are named after a placename. A somewhat more prosaic explanation, alas.
Not at all. The Quorn Hunt was named because it was founded near/at Quorn in Leics. That is how all hunts are named. Over 200 years ago. Since that time it (the Quorn Hunt) has become one of the most famous in the UK. 40-odd years ago some marketing whizzkid thought they would use the already trademarked name "Quorn" (itself deriving from the Quorn Hunt) as the name for a veggie food.
This was either through ignorance or intent. If the former it is laughable, if the latter it is a very good joke.
Well, but the hunt has rather followed the food has it not? Since fox hunting with hounds is now banned I am sure that the Quorn Hunt is as bloodless as the foodstuff of the same name.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
Even as a maximal initial bid, a 26 percent pay demand so to speak, that's not remotely a runner, is it?
(Though it may well be what Crass Putin had in mind when he launched the invasion.)
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Wiki suggests that both are named after a placename. A somewhat more prosaic explanation, alas.
Not at all. The Quorn Hunt was named because it was founded near/at Quorn in Leics. That is how all hunts are named. Over 200 years ago. Since that time it (the Quorn Hunt) has become one of the most famous in the UK. 40-odd years ago some marketing whizzkid thought they would use the already trademarked name "Quorn" (itself deriving from the Quorn Hunt) as the name for a veggie food.
This was either through ignorance or intent. If the former it is laughable, if the latter it is a very good joke.
Well, but the hunt has rather followed the food has it not? Since fox hunting with hounds is now banned I am sure that the Quorn Hunt is as bloodless as the foodstuff of the same name.
Yep absolutely. Non-animal based scents is what it's all about now.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
It says you can't be elected. It doesn't say you can't be inaugurated, or that you're ineligible to be President, or that you can't be nominated. You just can't be elected.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
His name couldn't be on the ballot by definition as that would be standing for election. Given the 2026 midterms would likely see Democrats win back Congress they would of course immediately move to impeach Trump if that was even attempted
Lots of people's names are on ballot papers who are not elected. Those are certainly two different things.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
I think you're just triggered.
Triggered is a strange word to describe it. I think, however, that it is funny. And it induces a low level half-smile funny not laugh out loud funny every time I think about it. Which is not that often.
If you are a passionate veggie then one of your top food sources is named after a fox hunt.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Wiki suggests that both are named after a placename. A somewhat more prosaic explanation, alas.
Not at all. The Quorn Hunt was named because it was founded near/at Quorn in Leics. That is how all hunts are named. Over 200 years ago. Since that time it (the Quorn Hunt) has become one of the most famous in the UK. 40-odd years ago some marketing whizzkid thought they would use the already trademarked name "Quorn" (itself deriving from the Quorn Hunt) as the name for a veggie food.
This was either through ignorance or intent. If the former it is laughable, if the latter it is a very good joke.
Well, but the hunt has rather followed the food has it not? Since fox hunting with hounds is now banned I am sure that the Quorn Hunt is as bloodless as the foodstuff of the same name.
The day after the 1997 election, a group of us went for a celebratory drink in Quorn. Enjoying not only the landslide but the fact that such an archetypal Tory village was now represented by a Labour MP.
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
I think you're just triggered.
Triggered is a strange word to describe it. I think, however, that it is funny. And it induces a low level half-smile funny not laugh out loud funny every time I think about it. Which is not that often.
If you are a passionate veggie then one of your top food sources is named after a fox hunt.
Is funny.
I'm not. But I've tried it, and FWIW, it's pretty tasteless stuff.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
2/3rds of the states is definitely easier for the GOP compared to Democrats - all the states Trump won + NH, MN and VA would do it (Yes I'm aware it's much tougher than that !)
2/3rds of the house looks the essential impossibility to me as there's 57 districts in California whereas it gets counted the same for the senate score as say Alaska.
2/3rds of the states is not within any sort of reach for the Democrats as they'd need to get everything up to and including... *drumroll* Kansas which is further away for the Democrats than Virginia is for the republicans. If they got as far as Kansas I expect they'd have at least 2/3rds of the house.
A bit like the Hilbert hotel and different sized infinities, the odds for the GOP getting supermajorities are infinitesimal but orders of magnitude greater than the Dems achieving the same feat.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
It says you can't be elected. It doesn't say you can't be inaugurated, or that you're ineligible to be President, or that you can't be nominated. You just can't be elected.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
His name couldn't be on the ballot by definition as that would be standing for election. Given the 2026 midterms would likely see Democrats win back Congress they would of course immediately move to impeach Trump if that was even attempted
Lots of people's names are on ballot papers who are not elected. Those are certainly two different things.
No, electoral authorities will refuse to place any candidate on a ballot who is ineligible to be elected.
You have to sign a nomination form saying you are eligible to be elected for starters and Trump obviously couldn't as the 22nd amendment forbids him being elected a 3rd time
There's a good example supporting Gareth's point about media bias. After the Katrina hurricane, most US journalists blamed George W. Bush for a poor response. What did voters in Louisiana think? After the hurricane, they elected a Bush official, Bobby Jindal, governor, and Republicans have had the edge in the state ever since. Mississippi, which was hit almost as hard as Louisiana, had a Republican governor, Haley Barbour, during the hurricane. Barbour was re-elected in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
(One of the reasons the Guardian and the BBC got the Katrina response so wrong is that they do not understand how limited a president's powers are in such disasters. FEMA is designed to support state and local governments -- after governors ask for help.)
Something to make PB's public-sector* antagonists' heads explode: just been trying to apply for paternity leave and it looks like the University now offers six weeks at full pay (to be taken in any combination within 12 months of birth). Last time I applied, in 2022, it was the standard two weeks, albeit with one week boosted to full pay and the other at statutory.
*actually private-sector, ish, depends how you see universities I guess.
ETA: I'll still be expected to meet the same targets in terms of publications and funding though, I'm sure!
25-30 days of leave is fairly standard in good private sector jobs. Working days that is - not including bank holidays.
He’s talking paternity leave not holiday.
Minimum for me would be 5 weeks and ideally 28/30 before bank holidays
I really can't think what anyone would do with that 5 weeks except drive your poor wife to distraction.
6 weeks.
If the birth goes well then, with my wife's parents nearby and supportive, 2-3 weeks is doable post-birth (I've generally taken the two weeks and then added just a few days annual leave to go up to a weekend, previously. But this will enable me to offer a lot more support over school holidays in the first few months where things that can be done with a baby in tow can be limited and the other three will get some quality time with us/me/my wife. It will be a headache fitting in that much leave with my pre-existing research grants though - ideally they'd automatically extend too, but it's not that simple and my team won't be taking equivalent time off.
I’d have taken off all the time I was allowed to. Not because I enjoy spending time with babies, but because looking after your first baby takes up literally all of one parent’s waking time, but that parent then has no time to look after themselves; that then becomes the job of the second parent. Looking after a subsequent baby is easier, but to counter that there are existing children to look after. This goes on for weeks on end. It doesn’t really stop being a massive joyless slog until you’re about 8 weeks in. (It’s less joyless the second and third time around because you have larger children to keep you distracted.) Babies are awful. Children are great, but babies are awful.
They really are. I became near suicidal with lack of sleep and general fucked-up ness when my older daughter was a tiny tot
At one point she would only sleep if balanced precariously face down on my chest. Presumably my heart beat soothed her? Anyway then she slept LIKE A BABY
But it meant I had to lie there rigid and awake all frigging night. OMG
The tiredness accumulates until you start hallucinating
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
Even as a maximal initial bid, a 26 percent pay demand so to speak, that's not remotely a runner, is it?
(Though it may well be what Crass Putin had in mind when he launched the invasion.)
It's curious in that it gives up on Odessa, but it's still asking for the western part of Kherson, across the river. They might as well have asked for the whole Black Sea coast. There's zero chance of Ukraine giving back Kherson by choice.
Something to make PB's public-sector* antagonists' heads explode: just been trying to apply for paternity leave and it looks like the University now offers six weeks at full pay (to be taken in any combination within 12 months of birth). Last time I applied, in 2022, it was the standard two weeks, albeit with one week boosted to full pay and the other at statutory.
*actually private-sector, ish, depends how you see universities I guess.
ETA: I'll still be expected to meet the same targets in terms of publications and funding though, I'm sure!
25-30 days of leave is fairly standard in good private sector jobs. Working days that is - not including bank holidays.
He’s talking paternity leave not holiday.
Minimum for me would be 5 weeks and ideally 28/30 before bank holidays
I really can't think what anyone would do with that 5 weeks except drive your poor wife to distraction.
6 weeks.
If the birth goes well then, with my wife's parents nearby and supportive, 2-3 weeks is doable post-birth (I've generally taken the two weeks and then added just a few days annual leave to go up to a weekend, previously. But this will enable me to offer a lot more support over school holidays in the first few months where things that can be done with a baby in tow can be limited and the other three will get some quality time with us/me/my wife. It will be a headache fitting in that much leave with my pre-existing research grants though - ideally they'd automatically extend too, but it's not that simple and my team won't be taking equivalent time off.
I’d have taken off all the time I was allowed to. Not because I enjoy spending time with babies, but because looking after your first baby takes up literally all of one parent’s waking time, but that parent then has no time to look after themselves; that then becomes the job of the second parent. Looking after a subsequent baby is easier, but to counter that there are existing children to look after. This goes on for weeks on end. It doesn’t really stop being a massive joyless slog until you’re about 8 weeks in. (It’s less joyless the second and third time around because you have larger children to keep you distracted.) Babies are awful. Children are great, but babies are awful.
They really are. I became near suicidal with lack of sleep and general fucked-up ness when my older daughter was a tiny tot
At one point she would only sleep if balanced precariously face down on my chest. Presumably my heart beat soothed her? Anyway then she slept LIKE A BABY
But it meant I had to lie there rigid and awake all frigging night. OMG
The tiredness accumulates until you start hallucinating
Did you live with the mother, or were you just an occasional drop-in?
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
I think you're just triggered.
Triggered is a strange word to describe it. I think, however, that it is funny. And it induces a low level half-smile funny not laugh out loud funny every time I think about it. Which is not that often.
If you are a passionate veggie then one of your top food sources is named after a fox hunt.
Is funny.
I'm not. But I've tried it, and FWIW, it's pretty tasteless stuff.
Quorn is fine. I'd much rather have Quorn than the cheapest 80% of meat being sold.
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
Even as a maximal initial bid, a 26 percent pay demand so to speak, that's not remotely a runner, is it?
(Though it may well be what Crass Putin had in mind when he launched the invasion.)
If we’re going to redraw the lines on the European map, then I think Russia should restore their historic lands to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire. Should put the Russian border just east of Moscow.
I've been fairly critical of Starmer on here, but if this conversation is an example of the best the 'Conservatives' can do, then he's going to be PM for many, many decades.
He can eat what he wants.
But if this was Boris, you'd say he was incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
From summer 2024, after saying he forced his kids to be vegetarian until 10:
“We don’t have meat or fish in the house, we don’t cook it...'
The ex-vegetarian, ex-pescatarian is now saying he cooks meat (ham) and fish as his staple dish on a Saturday after observing his Jewish family evening, that's really important on the Friday.
In the scheme of things it really isn't important. But we can add this to not dreaming, no favourite book, no favourite poem, no favourite christmas movie, no phobias and so on. There is no substance to the man, he's soulless.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
Isn't Starmer's family Jewish? Ham pasta bake seems like an odd choice.
You have a very reductive understanding of religions, don’t you?
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
It says you can't be elected. It doesn't say you can't be inaugurated, or that you're ineligible to be President, or that you can't be nominated. You just can't be elected.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
His name couldn't be on the ballot by definition as that would be standing for election. Given the 2026 midterms would likely see Democrats win back Congress they would of course immediately move to impeach Trump if that was even attempted
It doesn't say you can't stand for election. It just says you can't be elected.
Something to make PB's public-sector* antagonists' heads explode: just been trying to apply for paternity leave and it looks like the University now offers six weeks at full pay (to be taken in any combination within 12 months of birth). Last time I applied, in 2022, it was the standard two weeks, albeit with one week boosted to full pay and the other at statutory.
*actually private-sector, ish, depends how you see universities I guess.
ETA: I'll still be expected to meet the same targets in terms of publications and funding though, I'm sure!
25-30 days of leave is fairly standard in good private sector jobs. Working days that is - not including bank holidays.
He’s talking paternity leave not holiday.
Minimum for me would be 5 weeks and ideally 28/30 before bank holidays
I really can't think what anyone would do with that 5 weeks except drive your poor wife to distraction.
6 weeks.
If the birth goes well then, with my wife's parents nearby and supportive, 2-3 weeks is doable post-birth (I've generally taken the two weeks and then added just a few days annual leave to go up to a weekend, previously. But this will enable me to offer a lot more support over school holidays in the first few months where things that can be done with a baby in tow can be limited and the other three will get some quality time with us/me/my wife. It will be a headache fitting in that much leave with my pre-existing research grants though - ideally they'd automatically extend too, but it's not that simple and my team won't be taking equivalent time off.
I’d have taken off all the time I was allowed to. Not because I enjoy spending time with babies, but because looking after your first baby takes up literally all of one parent’s waking time, but that parent then has no time to look after themselves; that then becomes the job of the second parent. Looking after a subsequent baby is easier, but to counter that there are existing children to look after. This goes on for weeks on end. It doesn’t really stop being a massive joyless slog until you’re about 8 weeks in. (It’s less joyless the second and third time around because you have larger children to keep you distracted.) Babies are awful. Children are great, but babies are awful.
They really are. I became near suicidal with lack of sleep and general fucked-up ness when my older daughter was a tiny tot
At one point she would only sleep if balanced precariously face down on my chest. Presumably my heart beat soothed her? Anyway then she slept LIKE A BABY
But it meant I had to lie there rigid and awake all frigging night. OMG
The tiredness accumulates until you start hallucinating
Did you live with the mother, or were you just an occasional drop-in?
At that point living with her, we split when my daughter was nearly 1. Quite possibly the saddest day of my life. In fact, definitely the saddest
We were incompatible and arguing 24/7, it was horrific. But I still remember the moment I left, I went into my daughter's little room, where she was sleeping soundly and innocently. And I looked at her and thought "Oh God, I will not know my own daughter, I've fucked up everything, my life, her mum's life, and most of all hers"
And then I had to go, out into the freezing night, and I went back to my old flat and sat down alone in the dark and I violently sobbed for about an hour. Fucking hell. Even thinking about it now tears me up
But you know what? I have had a good, continued and indeed improving relationship with my older daughter, we get on very well (probably better than I did with my own mum and dad), the holiday I had with her in France this summer was magical, we laughed the whole time. It was one of the best forrtnights of my life. So, sometimes your worst fears do not come true, not at all. Thank God
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
I think you're just triggered.
Triggered is a strange word to describe it. I think, however, that it is funny. And it induces a low level half-smile funny not laugh out loud funny every time I think about it. Which is not that often.
If you are a passionate veggie then one of your top food sources is named after a fox hunt.
Is funny.
I'm not. But I've tried it, and FWIW, it's pretty tasteless stuff.
Quorn is fine. I'd much rather have Quorn than the cheapest 80% of meat being sold.
Fake meat's a bit of a waste of time, IMO.
Having been on the old tofu for a while, for health reasons, I've learned to cook it so that it tastes of something, and honestly it's far better than fake meat, which is almost always a disappointment compared to the real stuff (and if it's halfway decent, is usually loaded with salt).
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Very healthy, Quorn.
Invented by a joint venture between Rank Hovis McDougall (RHM) and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI).
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Very healthy, Quorn.
Invented by a joint venture between Rank Hovis McDougall (RHM) and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI).
Voters under 30 are at 65% approval of the Trump transition
The significance of this shouldn't be underestimated. It's the under-30s who are most enthusiastic about Trump 2.0. Labout won't be able to count on the youth vote in the next election.
I've been fairly critical of Starmer on here, but if this conversation is an example of the best the 'Conservatives' can do, then he's going to be PM for many, many decades.
He can eat what he wants.
But if this was Boris, you'd say he was incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
From summer 2024, after saying he forced his kids to be vegetarian until 10:
“We don’t have meat or fish in the house, we don’t cook it...'
The ex-vegetarian, ex-pescatarian is now saying he cooks meat (ham) and fish as his staple dish on a Saturday after observing his Jewish family evening, that's really important on the Friday.
In the scheme of things it really isn't important. But we can add this to not dreaming, no favourite book, no favourite poem, no favourite christmas movie, no phobias and so on. There is no substance to the man, he's soulless.
So?
A man who has a maelstrom of evil where his soul should be has just won a simply huge election. (C'mon, even if you think Trump is an effective man, he's not a good man, is he?)
It's the lived economy, stupid. And always is. If people's lived experience is better in 2028/9 than it is now, Labour win no matter what the weaknesses of their candidate. You may think that they are going the wrong way about that, but that's for them to decide, not us.
And until the government decide to call an election, there is pretty much nothing their opponents can do about it. In the same way that Johnson survived partygate and was only deposed by his MPs when a different set of lies ("putting a sex pest in as their HR manager"gate) directly affected them.
"Four more years of impotence and irrelevance" doesn't take long if you say it quickly.
(I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is a thing.)
Some on the right people are weirdly obsessed about Starmer. Beneath it all I think they’re trying to process how it was that Starmer defeated them in July. He doesn’t care about Xmas movies and likes ham! Omg. How can that be.
I thought he was a vegetarian.
No he’s not. But is there anything wrong if he was?
He was a vegetarian. Then he came out as a pescatarian this year. Now he cooks meat most Saturdays.
There's nothing there - the guy is a human vacuum.
I'm a vegetarian but cook meat several times a week. It's called having a family.
There's also (wince) vegetarian ham.
No there isn't.
Sadly, there is.
Find me a definition of ham which includes the option for it to be a non-meat product.
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
No, it's worse than that.
"Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
I continue to find it amusing that whichever brand people it was decided to use the name of one of the most distinguised fox hunts in the UK for their non-meat veggie products.
Should we avoid Quorn Hunters' Chicken because it has a distinctly foxy taste?
Surely there isn't a Quorn Hunters Chicken.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
Yes I see. The fact remains that one of the most famous veggie products is named, consciously so or perhaps by idiots, after one of the most famous fox hunts.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
I think you're just triggered.
Triggered is a strange word to describe it. I think, however, that it is funny. And it induces a low level half-smile funny not laugh out loud funny every time I think about it. Which is not that often.
If you are a passionate veggie then one of your top food sources is named after a fox hunt.
Is funny.
Bizarrely one of my more leisurely summer jobs while at uni involved supporting the assignment/renewal of the Quorn trade marks (along with a load of other marks). I was mostly a glorified filing clerk - but it paid well. The trade mark dated from the late seventies (or at least one of the did). The rest were mid-80s.
Strongly suspect the folks who picked the name chose it because it was a soundalike for corn. Which conjures up a lot more wholesome images than tiny mushrooms produced in massive industrial fermenters.
But I guess the link to the hunt can be said to be a touch amusing.
I've been fairly critical of Starmer on here, but if this conversation is an example of the best the 'Conservatives' can do, then he's going to be PM for many, many decades.
He can eat what he wants.
But if this was Boris, you'd say he was incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
From summer 2024, after saying he forced his kids to be vegetarian until 10:
“We don’t have meat or fish in the house, we don’t cook it...'
The ex-vegetarian, ex-pescatarian is now saying he cooks meat (ham) and fish as his staple dish on a Saturday after observing his Jewish family evening, that's really important on the Friday.
In the scheme of things it really isn't important. But we can add this to not dreaming, no favourite book, no favourite poem, no favourite christmas movie, no phobias and so on. There is no substance to the man, he's soulless.
So?
A man who has a maelstrom of evil where his soul should be has just won a simply huge election. (C'mon, even if you think Trump is an effective man, he's not a good man, is he?)
Oh get over yourself. He's just some bloke who got elected to POTUS. Talking about the thread header, the attempted demonisation of Trump is a contributory factor to his victory.
I've been fairly critical of Starmer on here, but if this conversation is an example of the best the 'Conservatives' can do, then he's going to be PM for many, many decades.
He can eat what he wants.
But if this was Boris, you'd say he was incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
From summer 2024, after saying he forced his kids to be vegetarian until 10:
“We don’t have meat or fish in the house, we don’t cook it...'
The ex-vegetarian, ex-pescatarian is now saying he cooks meat (ham) and fish as his staple dish on a Saturday after observing his Jewish family evening, that's really important on the Friday.
In the scheme of things it really isn't important. But we can add this to not dreaming, no favourite book, no favourite poem, no favourite christmas movie, no phobias and so on. There is no substance to the man, he's soulless.
So?
A man who has a maelstrom of evil where his soul should be has just won a simply huge election. (C'mon, even if you think Trump is an effective man, he's not a good man, is he?)
It's the lived economy, stupid. And always is. If people's lived experience is better in 2028/9 than it is now, Labour win no matter what the weaknesses of their candidate. You may think that they are going the wrong way about that, but that's for them to decide, not us.
And until the government decide to call an election, there is pretty much nothing their opponents can do about it. In the same way that Johnson survived partygate and was only deposed by his MPs when a different set of lies ("putting a sex pest in as their HR manager"gate) directly affected them.
"Four more years of impotence and irrelevance" doesn't take long if you say it quickly.
(I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is a thing.)
If (massive “if” at this stage) this turned out to be a one term government, the history books are going to look really weird. The day after they each won, one would have assumed Boris and Starmer each had a second term in the bank, based on previous precedent. Boris more than Starmer, I guess, based on overall numbers.
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
I’m not predicting it would happen, but he could get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that the term limit doesn’t apply in his case. The Supreme Court have already said some pretty ridiculous things in order to serve Trump’s whims. They’ve already made him above the law.
How? The 22nd Amendment says clearly 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once'
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
It says you can't be elected. It doesn't say you can't be inaugurated, or that you're ineligible to be President, or that you can't be nominated. You just can't be elected.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
His name couldn't be on the ballot by definition as that would be standing for election. Given the 2026 midterms would likely see Democrats win back Congress they would of course immediately move to impeach Trump if that was even attempted
It doesn't say you can't stand for election. It just says you can't be elected.
You can't even stand for election if you can't be elected for said post, nomination forms prohibit it
One reason -- in my opinion -- that Harris did not choose Shapiro is that her husband is Jewish. (From what I can tell, neither he nor she actually attend religious services regularly.)
Late to the party, but the main thread header seems to smack of a tremendous amount of hindsight. Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
Trump would need 2/3 of the Congress and 2/3 of the States to back a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term which is highly unlikely especially given likely Democratic gains in the 2026 midterms
The probabilities are that a 'Trump third term' is a non issue and a diversion. The issue it is diverting from would be the careful arrangement of a Trumpian succession in 2028, and it is this which needs attention and action from the Democrats if they are to be serious players in the medium term.
Comments
Worth it, but jeez, it was hard work for a while. I don't think my ability to sleep through the night has ever recovered.
(Second kid was fine.)
Or are we in tall-short black-white territory because it's your truth.
Putin may feel that he's tantalisingly close to finally breaking the Ukrainian ability to resist, and six more months would see his army in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk and Zaporizhzhia.
Surely Putin can't do a deal that leaves part of Kursk in Ukrainian hands. Is he willing to trade land? I'd doubt it. If the Russians succeed in retaking Kursk before inauguration, then they'd be quite confident about making further advances. Why then freeze the conflict?
It would need a big threat to convince Putin to abandon his maximalist demands.
why the dems lost to Trump the other dayham recipies."Quorn Vegetarian Ham Slices"...
Putin’s “peace plan” aims to split Ukraine into three parts by 2026, Bild reports
According to a secret Russian Ministry of Defense document, cited by Bild via Ukrainian intelligence, Putin’s plan proposes annexing all of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea.
Kyiv, Sumy, and Odesa regions would form a “pro-Russian state formation,” while western Ukraine would be labeled “disputed territories,” with decisions on these areas left to negotiations involving Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
This “peace plan” is reportedly intended for presentation to Donald Trump.
If academia is embracing more child-friendly policies then the woke liberal babies will be in the majority soon enough. Unless they rebel against their woke liberal parents of course
Criticising Walz, who in August and September was an inspired choice (said many on here) seems to be a significant error. There was nothing wrong with Walz.
The real answer lies (ha!) in Trump, who simply lies and lies and lies and says what he thinks people want to hear.
Enough people either believed the entirety of the lie, or believed he was lying about only certain parts that they felt he was the safe choice.
The real answer was almost given by Abraham Lincoln some 160 odd years ago. He started,
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time."
Before concluding with "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
He finished wrong. He should have said, "And in a First Past the Post system, with a bit of luck, a bit of voter suppression and a bit of Gerrymandering, that's good enough to win all the time, every time."
It remains to be seen whether the man who promised that Christains only have to vote 'just once more' is good to his word, because I believe he will be. The United States might run a 2028 election, but it'll be more like Trump's mate Putin style election than a free and fair one we might expect.
*Google*
Blimey there is. They are having a larf. That or the Quorn (foodstuff) CEO is an avid foxhunter and is trolling the veggies.
My son used to love Billy bear ham. Except he used to call it 'Baby ham'.
Hopefully not ham made out of babies...
Not that there will be a sane US President soon. Trump doesn’t have a plan beyond believing in his own greatness and hating the Ukrainians for not providing fake information on Hunter Biden.
About a fifth of UK Jews eat pork: https://www.jpr.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Jews in the UK today - Feb 2024 - Jewish identity report.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn
The brand Quorn was first marketed in 1985 by Marlow Foods (named after Rank Hovis McDougall's headquarters in Marlow, Buckinghamshire), a joint venture between RHM and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which provided a fermenter left vacant from their abandoned single-cell feed programme.[13] The two partners invested in patents for growing and processing the fungus, and other intellectual properties in the brand.[citation needed] The name of the product was taken from a trademark owned by RHM. This trademark was previously used for a range of instant food packets named after the Quorn Hunt, which in turn derives from the Leicestershire village of Quorn.
https://www.quornmuseum.com/artefacts/pdf/2011.pdf
The SC can interpret the constitution in a conservative fashion, they can't however override what it says clearly and explicitly in black and white
But what three words they were.
My ancestor, a stout Yeoman of Quorn, was lucky enough to employ the several times winner of the local ploughing competition back in the 17th century. That’s about as exciting as the WDYTYA revelations got.
If that isn't a source of amusement then what is.
So, he could have his name on the ballot and it would be 75 million Americans voting for him who would be defying the Constitution. I could see the Supreme Court declining to override the wishes of the voters in that circumstance.
This was either through ignorance or intent. If the former it is laughable, if the latter it is a very good joke.
Not hard to follow.
(Though it may well be what Crass Putin had in mind when he launched the invasion.)
If you are a passionate veggie then one of your top food sources is named after a fox hunt.
Is funny.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1860811652536656125
But I've tried it, and FWIW, it's pretty tasteless stuff.
2/3rds of the house looks the essential impossibility to me as there's 57 districts in California whereas it gets counted the same for the senate score as say Alaska.
2/3rds of the states is not within any sort of reach for the Democrats as they'd need to get everything up to and including... *drumroll* Kansas which is further away for the Democrats than Virginia is for the republicans. If they got as far as Kansas I expect they'd have at least 2/3rds of the house.
A bit like the Hilbert hotel and different sized infinities, the odds for the GOP getting supermajorities are infinitesimal but orders of magnitude greater than the Dems achieving the same feat.
You have to sign a nomination form saying you are eligible to be elected for starters and Trump obviously couldn't as the 22nd amendment forbids him being elected a 3rd time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
(One of the reasons the Guardian and the BBC got the Katrina response so wrong is that they do not understand how limited a president's powers are in such disasters. FEMA is designed to support state and local governments -- after governors ask for help.)
At one point she would only sleep if balanced precariously face down on my chest. Presumably my heart beat soothed her? Anyway then she slept LIKE A BABY
But it meant I had to lie there rigid and awake all frigging night. OMG
The tiredness accumulates until you start hallucinating
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/25/dhl-cargo-plane-crashes-near-lithuania-airport
But if this was Boris, you'd say he was incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
From summer 2024, after saying he forced his kids to be vegetarian until 10:
“We don’t have meat or fish in the house, we don’t cook it...'
The ex-vegetarian, ex-pescatarian is now saying he cooks meat (ham) and fish as his staple dish on a Saturday after observing his Jewish family evening, that's really important on the Friday.
In the scheme of things it really isn't important. But we can add this to not dreaming, no favourite book, no favourite poem, no favourite christmas movie, no phobias and so on. There is no substance to the man, he's soulless.
https://x.com/SykesCharlie/status/1131962850828857344
We were incompatible and arguing 24/7, it was horrific. But I still remember the moment I left, I went into my daughter's little room, where she was sleeping soundly and innocently. And I looked at her and thought "Oh God, I will not know my own daughter, I've fucked up everything, my life, her mum's life, and most of all hers"
And then I had to go, out into the freezing night, and I went back to my old flat and sat down alone in the dark and I violently sobbed for about an hour. Fucking hell. Even thinking about it now tears me up
But you know what? I have had a good, continued and indeed improving relationship with my older daughter, we get on very well (probably better than I did with my own mum and dad), the holiday I had with her in France this summer was magical, we laughed the whole time. It was one of the best forrtnights of my life. So, sometimes your worst fears do not come true, not at all. Thank God
Having been on the old tofu for a while, for health reasons, I've learned to cook it so that it tastes of something, and honestly it's far better than fake meat, which is almost always a disappointment compared to the real stuff (and if it's halfway decent, is usually loaded with salt).
Oh, how we laughed.
Invented by a joint venture between Rank Hovis McDougall (RHM) and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI).
Fun fact: Bernie Sanders gets far more national coverage, but moderate Republican governor Phil Scott is more popular in Vermont than Sanders.
A man who has a maelstrom of evil where his soul should be has just won a simply huge election.
(C'mon, even if you think Trump is an effective man, he's not a good man, is he?)
It's the lived economy, stupid. And always is. If people's lived experience is better in 2028/9 than it is now, Labour win no matter what the weaknesses of their candidate. You may think that they are going the wrong way about that, but that's for them to decide, not us.
And until the government decide to call an election, there is pretty much nothing their opponents can do about it. In the same way that Johnson survived partygate and was only deposed by his MPs when a different set of lies ("putting a sex pest in as their HR manager"gate) directly affected them.
"Four more years of impotence and irrelevance" doesn't take long if you say it quickly.
(I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is a thing.)
Strongly suspect the folks who picked the name chose it because it was a soundalike for corn. Which conjures up a lot more wholesome images than tiny mushrooms produced in massive industrial fermenters.
But I guess the link to the hunt can be said to be a touch amusing.
Because the Democrat candidate would obviously be Obama (B), and he really would easily beat an 82 year old Trump.
We are living through really odd times.
NEW THREAD
Assuming Bush didn’t take him on in the primaries.