So I wonder then about the reports from BBC journalists on this suggesting there is perhaps more than one incident, more than one compromising situation.
What if its more, not just about his leisure activities. Just, more.
The original report was commissioned and paid for by political opponents of Trump in the US. If Christopher Steele went around his contacts offering money for information about whether they had compromising material on Trump and whether Trump was working for them, it seems self-evident that he will be able to find people who, for whatever reason, will say 'yes' and who will also have access to enough other relevant information to piece together a story that is superficially plausible. I think MonikerDiCanio has him bang to rights.
Lets call a spade a spade, Trump could piss on your loved ones in front of you and you'd still call it fake.
Intelligence agencies have been aware of possible issues with Trump and the Russians for YEARS. Steele's report was part triggered for commissioning because US agencies warned the GOP that Trump might have some significant difficulties as a candidate.
I know this post is from yesterday but the bit in bold is so applicable to significant sections on this site that it's unreal.
I agree, sadly becoming more like Guido or Briebart every day and I notice that a lot of longterm posters seem to be posting less or disappearing altogether. It's soon going to be very difficult to debate anything if there is no agreement on the basic facts. Give Anthony Wells UK Polling Report a try.
100%. This site is moving so further to right it can hardly claim it's 'representative' of public opinion like it has done previously. The idea most of the UK population's first inclination is to defend Trump on everything is fanciful.
I often think AlstairMeeks' observations on here are spot on.
I'll try UKPR. Haven't been there for literally years though, I used go on there every Sunday morning to see what the polls were saying!
I'm sorry about your termination. It must have been a very difficult decision for you to make.
I'm pro-choice but even I don't agree with things such as a partial-birth abortion. I also agree with you that I feel uncomfortable with third-trimester abortions. But at least you give exceptions (like the mother's death). A lot of pro-lifers would have the mother die. My grandmother in the 1960s was pregnant with her fifth child and they told her that if she had the baby she'd die. My grandmother already had four children to look after (including my mum). So she had to have an abortion, but she didn't want to and it hurts personally to see some of these pro-lifers imply that all women who have an abortion are evil/murderers because of my own family history.
@david_herdson At the time when it was reported the headlines I saw was that he wanted to punish women who'd had abortions. It's only now that I've seen the caveat. AlsoIndigo said it was misreported....
@John_M Thanks. I think many on here wouldn't call themselves Trump supporters, but do seem to be defending Trump a lot.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Anyone who gropes women, and feels that women who have abortions should be punished is not socially liberal.
I agree with you on Pence though - he is actually insane. Just as much as Trump is.
The first is hearsay, and the second is misreporting, although both are probably true
Trump actually said that if abortions were made illegal then women should be punished, it would be a strange world if people were not punished for breaking the law. Everyone went galloping after the wrong signal, the more important question is should abortion be made unlawful, and he didn't actually say that either, he said it should be a state decision, which while I can understand your suspicion for obvious reasons, is hard to argue against, since all it says on the face of it, is the decisions should be taken closer to the people.
Even those who are pro-life disagree with him on this. They feel it should be those that perform abortions that should be punished in the event of it being banned.
.
Wasn't that principle tried with Prohibition? How did that work out again?
(It is ironic isn't it, as an aside, how America sometimes resembles Iran more than France, given both its current obsessions and its founding history?)
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
@YBarddCwsc I don't know why Trump's enemies are pushing this Russian hookers thing. Even if was true, it won't change how his supporters view him. The more concerning part is that he is, to quote foxinsoxuk 'Russia's bitch.'
I can never understand why they built it right next to a busy road in the first place.
Same with Windsor Castle being on the Heathrow flightpath.
Yes, the old American tourist jokes. Why on Earth did they build such a wonderful castle so close to the airport!
As someone who spent far too much time in the traffic jams at Stonehenge (used to live in Salisbury and still have a place there) I can't wait for them to actually build the tunnel. But they've been talking about it for so long, I'll believe it only when I'm actually in the tunnel!
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
Anyone who gropes women, and feels that women who have abortions should be punished is not socially liberal.
I agree with you on Pence though - he is actually insane. Just as much as Trump is.
The first is hearsay, and the second is misreporting, although both are probably true
Trump actually said that if abortions were made illegal then women should be punished, it would be a strange world if people were not punished for breaking the law. Everyone went galloping after the wrong signal, the more important question is should abortion be made unlawful, and he didn't actually say that either, he said it should be a state decision, which while I can understand your suspicion for obvious reasons, is hard to argue against, since all it says on the face of it, is the decisions should be taken closer to the people.
Even those who are pro-life disagree with him on this. They feel it should be those that perform abortions that should be punished in the event of it being banned.
.
Wasn't that principle tried with Prohibition? How did that work out again?
(It is ironic isn't it, as an aside, how America sometimes resembles Iran more than France, given both its current obsessions and its founding history?)
The US was first settled by religious fundamentalists who disdained life's pleasures and hanged women for witchcraft. Puritanism - extremist Protestantism - has always been a major factor in the country's psyche. It's not Iran, but it is certainly not Catholic Europe! Culturally and socially, we are surely much closer to the French than most Americans are. The US certainly seems a lot more foreign to me than France does; even though I have been there dozens of times.
Happy to give evens to anyone who thinks that abortion will be very heavily restricted and/or made illegal by federal action (executive, congress or Constitution) under President Trump.
@John_M Thanks. I think many on here wouldn't call themselves Trump supporters, but do seem to be defending Trump a lot.
Devils advocates on PB surely not
Also just because people don't support Trump doesnt mean that have to support every half-arsed, evidence-free media attack on him either. Its entirely respectable to think Trump is a dangerous idiot, and to also think that Buzzfeed were irresponsible and unprofessional in giving such prominence to an unsupported and uncorroborated hatchet job.
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
You may be failing to differentiate between (a) liking trump and (b) disliking Trump but objectively believing that he is going to ride this out for one reason or another - all of them already well discussed on here.
@DanielHewittITV: I'm told there's disagreement in Labour over when to hold Copeland by-election. Local party want it ASAP (March), party HQ keen on May 4th.
Interesting, maybe they think they're being beaten on the ground atm.
The local party might also be concerned about the County Council elections and not want households to be flooded with Tory literature in April. Senior activists in constituency parties often give council elections undue importance for the simple reason that they have a personal interest in them.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I was reassured by his behaviour immediately after he'd won the election, his thank you speech and relatively gracious words to Obama and Clinton.
I am now rather unreassured.
Like Farage, Trump is a sensitive and self-centred narcissist who cares far more about himself than anything else, including his job or his country.
I presume the diplomatic service and Theresa May know this, or have behavioural psychologists that do - and that the way to get the most of him is through stroking his ego and other non-traditional methods because the formal rules of diplomacy might not work - but one can never be sure.
I also can't see May and Trump getting along at all - massively different personality types - but I really hope I'm wrong.
@John_M Thanks. I think many on here wouldn't call themselves Trump supporters, but do seem to be defending Trump a lot.
Devils advocates on PB surely not
Also just because people don't support Trump doesnt mean that have to support every half-arsed, evidence-free media attack on him either. Its entirely respectable to think Trump is a dangerous idiot, and to also think that Buzzfeed were irresponsible and unprofessional in giving such prominence to an unsupported and uncorroborated hatchet job.
Spot on. And that Steele has let his country down as badly as he possibly could.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Happy to give evens to anyone who thinks that abortion will be very heavily restricted and/or made illegal by federal action (executive, congress or Constitution) under President Trump.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal in the federal US.
The overturning of Roe v Wade will allow the States to individually decide how they handle the issue. The Conservative states will be free to restrict abortions and the liberal states will be free to allow them.
Anyone who gropes women, and feels that women who have abortions should be punished is not socially liberal.
I agree with you on Pence though - he is actually insane. Just as much as Trump is.
The first is hearsay, and the second is misreporting, although both are probably true
Trump actually said that if abortions were made illegal then women should be punished, it would be a strange world if people were not punished for breaking the law. Everyone went galloping after the wrong signal, the more important question is should abortion be made unlawful, and he didn't actually say that either, he said it should be a state decision, which while I can understand your suspicion for obvious reasons, is hard to argue against, since all it says on the face of it, is the decisions should be taken closer to the people.
Even those who are pro-life disagree with him on this. They feel it should be those that perform abortions that should be punished in the event of it being banned.
.
Wasn't that principle tried with Prohibition? How did that work out again?
(It is ironic isn't it, as an aside, how America sometimes resembles Iran more than France, given both its current obsessions and its founding history?)
Yep. The belief in 'intelligent design' and abstinence 'only' as sex education is weird too.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
I can never understand why they built it right next to a busy road in the first place.
Same with Windsor Castle being on the Heathrow flightpath.
Yes, the old American tourist jokes. Why on Earth did they build such a wonderful castle so close to the airport!
As someone who spent far too much time in the traffic jams at Stonehenge (used to live in Salisbury and still have a place there) I can't wait for them to actually build the tunnel. But they've been talking about it for so long, I'll believe it only when I'm actually in the tunnel!
The talked for years about the Hindhead tunnel too, but it did eventually get built so there's hope.
@John_M Thanks. I think many on here wouldn't call themselves Trump supporters, but do seem to be defending Trump a lot.
Devils advocates on PB surely not
Also just because people don't support Trump doesnt mean that have to support every half-arsed, evidence-free media attack on him either. Its entirely respectable to think Trump is a dangerous idiot, and to also think that Buzzfeed were irresponsible and unprofessional in giving such prominence to an unsupported and uncorroborated hatchet job.
I don't support what Buzzfeed did. This is about more observation of things on this site in the last couple of months. This isn't related to the Buzzfeed stuff at all.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I think this is a new @thetimes@YouGov poll. Lucky there's an extra £350m per week headed to the NHS.
Voter concern about the health service has intensified since November. The NHS has leapt from the fourth most important issue facing the government to the second, putting it ahead of immigration and the economy, according to a YouGov poll.
Morning all. If people are pinning their hopes on the idea that £18b p.a. will fix the health service, they're deluded. It'll be back in crisis within two years.
The only way to fix it is to abandon "free at the point of use" - and the only way to do that is to suspend representative democracy. Which, I suspect, a fair few Peebies would really like to do...
What is your evidence for this?
Countless times you've suggested on here that many pb'ers, generally those on the Right, are actually secret quasi-fascists who want to suspend democracy and shoot anyone vaguely Left-wing in the head.
It's happened far too many times to be a coincidence. You clearly believe it's true, even though I'm mystified as to how you reach your stage of life believing such things to be axiomatic.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Saying completely ridiculous things then backing off a bit may work in business, I'm not sure it will work internationally with say Kim Jon - Un
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
You may be failing to differentiate between (a) liking trump and (b) disliking Trump but objectively believing that he is going to ride this out for one reason or another - all of them already well discussed on here.
I admire Trump's talent and determination. He's a maverick in this space. I've no interest in him personally, I see my role as that of someone who 'gets' his appeal and I try to balance out the personal antipathy many PBers have.
I loathed Gordon and can't be objective about him.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
NHS demand is growing at 4% a year, the economy at 2%. This type of crisis will continue as long as a proper funding settlement is not reached. And no it's not all because of European immigration
People have to start taking more responsibility for their own health instead of outsourcing it to the A&E department.
In particular prevent poor health by avoiding smoking and excessive drinking; taking regular exercise; eat more fruit and veg.
Don't expect to indulge and that the NHS can make everything right again.
" taking regular exercise"
So far this year I've walked or run 120 miles, mainly by going out for an hour or more most mornings and evenings. That's about eleven miles a day.
And my f'ing fitness tracker still says: "could do better"
I'm looking after a toddler, you useless piece of electronic dross. How the f'ing 'eck do you expect me to do 'better'? And what does 'better' even mean?
(Throws mobile and watch into bin)
I've found personal trainers to be awful. They don't know how to pitch it to someone who wants to start getting healthy but doesn't want to be a fitness fanatic that lives and dreams the sweat and endorphins, as they do. I also think many think their job is to set you "X" and always demand X + Y, no matter how high X is.
I've usually been given impossible targets to meet that I've given up on within a fortnight. Now, I set my own targets (not dissimilar to yours) that are smaller, more achievable - and thus motivating - build up my challenge in my own time.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
He did brilliantly to win the Republican primary. I think he got a bit lucky in the general given how poorly Hilary targeted her campaign and FBI intervention. I think his unconventional approach definitely hurt him.. stuff like attacking captain khan surely was just a negative.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
I mildly disagree, in that political labels seem to have become almost meaningless. I have been called right wing, when by my own lights I'm barely clinging on to the left of the Tories.
I'd say that the board overall is moderate *whatever*. The headbangers much prefer to live in their Twitter echo chambers. Yes, we do have a few members of the Petulantariat still refighting the EUref, but that seems to have diminished somewhat.
The only group who are over represented are probably the Lib Dems, which is hardly surprising.
I can never understand why they built it right next to a busy road in the first place.
Same with Windsor Castle being on the Heathrow flightpath.
Yes, the old American tourist jokes. Why on Earth did they build such a wonderful castle so close to the airport!
As someone who spent far too much time in the traffic jams at Stonehenge (used to live in Salisbury and still have a place there) I can't wait for them to actually build the tunnel. But they've been talking about it for so long, I'll believe it only when I'm actually in the tunnel!
The talked for years about the Hindhead tunnel too, but it did eventually get built so there's hope.
Yes, that's true. Not been back in the UK since it opened, but the Hindhead junction was a right pain in the proverbial for decades.
Happy to give evens to anyone who thinks that abortion will be very heavily restricted and/or made illegal by federal action (executive, congress or Constitution) under President Trump.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal in the federal US.
The overturning of Roe v Wade will allow the States to individually decide how they handle the issue. The Conservative states will be free to restrict abortions and the liberal states will be free to allow them.
I'm very happy with that - if you want one, go to a clinic that fits your needs. Anything over 24 weeks makes me recoil.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
I mildly disagree, in that political labels seem to have become almost meaningless. I have been called right wing, when by my own lights I'm barely clinging on to the left of the Tories.
I'd say that the board overall is moderate *whatever*. The headbangers much prefer to live in their Twitter echo chambers. Yes, we do have a few members of the Petulantariat still refighting the EUref, but that seems to have diminished somewhat.
The only group who are over represented are probably the Lib Dems, which is hardly surprising.
I think the site is generally centre-right, certainly if you weight it by number of posts not number of posters. I think it could do with a few more voices from the centre left, actually.
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
Pb.com is not supposed to reflect public sentiment, it's supposed to discuss and debate betting angles on politics, preferably factoring in as much evidence and points of view as possible.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
Pb.com is not supposed to reflect public sentiment, it's supposed to discuss and debate betting angles on politics, preferably factoring in as much evidence and points of view as possible.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I didn't say, and don't believe that it does.
The media, and especially social media, was wrong about BrExit, because the people that run it and frequent it don't understand the sort of people that vote BrExit. They will be wrong about the sort of people that approve of Trump for the same reasons.
If BBC journalists can claim they found no evidence of Leave sentiment in London, and London voted 40% for Leave, how much credibility would you give to them saying they couldn't find anyone that supported Trump.
I would speculate that the vast majority of the politically indifferent population are rather bemused to see that chap they saw hosting The Apprentice about to step into the oval office, wonder if he is up to the job, and be concerned by the constant slating they here on the BBC. I doubt they "hate" him any more than they "hate" Farage.
Happy to give evens to anyone who thinks that abortion will be very heavily restricted and/or made illegal by federal action (executive, congress or Constitution) under President Trump.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal in the federal US.
The overturning of Roe v Wade will allow the States to individually decide how they handle the issue. The Conservative states will be free to restrict abortions and the liberal states will be free to allow them.
I'm very happy with that - if you want one, go to a clinic that fits your needs. Anything over 24 weeks makes me recoil.
The NHS have a higher limit - providing the foetus has a severe disability or continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother.
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
Pb.com is not supposed to reflect public sentiment, it's supposed to discuss and debate betting angles on politics, preferably factoring in as much evidence and points of view as possible.
Stay. We all need to be challenged.
Re your first point: I mentioned it because it's been stated before that this site represents the wider public.
On your second point: I'm not leaving. If I join UKPR it'll simply be another site that I visit.
Getting back to domestic matters, May really ought to stick a penny on tax for the NHS.
BUT in return:
No above inflation pay rises for staff; no more blimmin PFI; reforms that actually work.
Lamb's right on this one, all parties need to bang their heads together - the population is aging so the healthcare system needs more cash.
Not to be pissed away like Brown did though.
We need a cross-party consensus and to borrow an overused phrase, we need a holistic approach. Health and social care are two hands that wash each other. I also think there needs to be far more emphasis on individual responsibilities in terms of personal health & habits. While I'm fantasising, I'd also like a pony and a large sack of money, please.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Saying completely ridiculous things then backing off a bit may work in business, I'm not sure it will work internationally with say Kim Jon - Un
What twaddle - since when was being ridiculous in business a winner? And then you jump to the North Korea Godwin argument?
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
Most on here are eurosceptic to some degree. Most on this site hate the liberal left, let alone being 'centre-left'!
If everyone seems right wing to you, possibly its because you are some way out to the left ? I hear some Corbynites think that the Fabians are on the right!
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I dont dislike Remainers or lefties. I still think of myself as a bit of a leftie really.
Undoubtedly most threads are written by Leavers. Card Carrying Conservatives can still hold views that are indistinguishable from Blairites.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I didn't say, and don't believe that it does.
The media, and especially social media, was wrong about BrExit, because the people that run it and frequent it don't understand the sort of people that vote BrExit. They will be wrong about the sort of people that approve of Trump for the same reasons.
If BBC journalists can claim they found no evidence of Leave sentiment in London, and London voted 40% for Leave, how much credibility would you give to them saying they couldn't find anyone that supported Trump.
I would speculate that the vast majority of the politically indifferent population are rather bemused to see that chap they saw hosting The Apprentice about to step into the oval office, wonder if he is up to the job, and be concerned by the constant slating they here on the BBC. I doubt they "hate" him any more than they "hate" Farage.
Don't you think that both Trump and Farage are 'Marmite' politicians. I hope that not many people hate them, but feeling strongly about them and the effect that they have on their lives is to be expected.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
Leaving aside the Yellowwatergate allegations, Trump hardly covered himself in glory with the ostensible purpose of the conference: his turning over of his business interests to a 'blind trust', run by his two sons, which has distinct Maxwellesque overtones.
Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Only if they are uncomfortable with the evidence underpinning their beliefs or fear they can't deal with any arguments that might dispute it.
Plenty of people prefer to life their lives with a comfort blanket of a relatively black and white world-view which they like and they don't have to think about too much.
The media, and especially social media, was wrong about BrExit, because the people that run it and frequent it don't understand the sort of people that vote BrExit. They will be wrong about the sort of people that approve of Trump for the same reasons.
If BBC journalists can claim they found no evidence of Leave sentiment in London, and London voted 40% for Leave, how much credibility would you give to them saying they couldn't find anyone that supported Trump.
I would speculate that the vast majority of the politically indifferent population are rather bemused to see that chap they saw hosting The Apprentice about to step into the oval office, wonder if he is up to the job, and be concerned by the constant slating they here on the BBC. I doubt they "hate" him any more than they "hate" Farage.
I never said that my conclusions on Trump/British public were based on BBC findings. There have been several non BBC commissioned polls done asking what people think of Trump and most don't have much time for him. Even Farage who is the closest equivalent to Trump in this country is not a popular figure. Him staying away from LEAVE's campaign really helped them.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
It would be nice to have some more sensible left centre chaps like yourself on PB. I miss the days of real debate over real policies ideas. Instead at the moment it is mostly,
insert headline -> insert because of Brexit / despite Brexit -> row over if it has anything to do with Brexit or not, rinse and repeat.
But then unfortunately our political masters have also appeared to decided to abandon new policy ideas, with the current battle of "more of the same" vs "back to the failed policies of the 70s".
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Saying completely ridiculous things then backing off a bit may work in business, I'm not sure it will work internationally with say Kim Jon - Un
What twaddle - since when was being ridiculous in business a winner? And then you jump to the North Korea Godwin argument?
Is it not the case that Trump's method is to say extreme things as a tactic and then to back off a bit?
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
Publish enough polls and some of them will be right (ish).
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I didn't say, and don't believe that it does.
The media, and especially social media, was wrong about BrExit, because the people that run it and frequent it don't understand the sort of people that vote BrExit. They will be wrong about the sort of people that approve of Trump for the same reasons.
If BBC journalists can claim they found no evidence of Leave sentiment in London, and London voted 40% for Leave, how much credibility would you give to them saying they couldn't find anyone that supported Trump.
I would speculate that the vast majority of the politically indifferent population are rather bemused to see that chap they saw hosting The Apprentice about to step into the oval office, wonder if he is up to the job, and be concerned by the constant slating they here on the BBC. I doubt they "hate" him any more than they "hate" Farage.
Don't you think that both Trump and Farage are 'Marmite' politicians. I hope that not many people hate them, but feeling strongly about them and the effect that they have on their lives is to be expected.
I think they are for those interested in politics, for 90% of more of the population they are a face on their newspaper they flick past on the way to the sports pages.
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
Pb.com is not supposed to reflect public sentiment, it's supposed to discuss and debate betting angles on politics, preferably factoring in as much evidence and points of view as possible.
Stay. We all need to be challenged.
Re your first point: I mentioned it because it's been stated before that this site represents the wider public.
On your second point: I'm not leaving. If I join UKPR it'll simply be another site that I visit.
Huzzah! We should start up a refer-a-friend program. Whatever our thoughts about PB, it'd be nice to see some fresh blood posting.
Most on here are eurosceptic to some degree. Most on this site hate the liberal left, let alone being 'centre-left'!
If everyone seems right wing to you, possibly its because you are some way out to the left ? I hear some Corbynites think that the Fabians are on the right!
I'm not a Corbynite. This is pretty much centre-right. Most are Conservatives/UKippers, most people are generally euro-sceptic.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
Tories in Copeland are close to selecting a candidate by my understanding. Labour can hardly select until Wee Jamie has actually resigned. For us Tories either March or May is OK. The Lib Dems will want March obviously as activists and telephone lines will be totally occupied in April with CCC elections. Locally, the CCC elections are much more important to all three parties than this by-election.
I can't believe the London centric media has written so much about Copeland already without any reference to Jam-eating.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I miss the days when some Nats called me a far right Tory.
The Texan Democrat swing was picked up, as was Utah.
One story that wasn't picked up was California. Of course its not important on the surfaces it was always going to go Democrat - but a 7% swing to the Democrats gives Trump an awful lot of votes elsewhere to take to be in line with on the surface good national polling for Hillary.
Because California counted so slowly this story was not picked up by the media - if California could actually count at a proper speed then the media narrative would have noted this far more than it did.
The swing state polling was also complete garbage !
I never said that my conclusions on Trump/British public were based on BBC findings. There have been several non BBC commissioned polls done asking what people think of Trump and most don't have much time for him. Even Farage who is the closest equivalent to Trump in this country is not a popular figure. Him staying away from LEAVE's campaign really helped them.
Which is a some what weaker statement than saying they hate him, which is what were heard earlier.
"Trump ? Seriously ? You mean the guy that is on The Apprentice ? How did he get to be president ? Does he know what he is doing ?"
In other words more or less what people said about Reagan before he started, despite his state level political experience.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I'd be saddened to see you leave.
Your views may - on occasion - be met with hostility and derision, but they are widely held views among a younger demographic and they are a harbinger for future shifts in public opinion.
Feminism spent decades being derided by the majority of the public (although this was likely to due to the paucity of female journalists, pundits, politicians and business leaders), but the principal that sexual equality is now so mainstream that to oppose it is a fringe view at best. The shift to acceptance of one's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is not complete but light years from mainstream opinion just 30 years ago. Anecdote: having dinner with friends, and was told that a boy had come out as gay at their son's school. It appears to have increased his popularity, which is a world apart from what the reaction would have been a generation ago: violence and isolation. (caveat: this was a fee-paying London school, so not particularly representative, but telling nevertheless.
I think this is a new @thetimes@YouGov poll. Lucky there's an extra £350m per week headed to the NHS.
Voter concern about the health service has intensified since November. The NHS has leapt from the fourth most important issue facing the government to the second, putting it ahead of immigration and the economy, according to a YouGov poll.
Morning all. If people are pinning their hopes on the idea that £18b p.a. will fix the health service, they're deluded. It'll be back in crisis within two years.
The only way to fix it is to abandon "free at the point of use" - and the only way to do that is to suspend representative democracy. Which, I suspect, a fair few Peebies would really like to do...
What is your evidence for this?
Countless times you've suggested on here that many pb'ers, generally those on the Right, are actually secret quasi-fascists who want to suspend democracy and shoot anyone vaguely Left-wing in the head.
It's happened far too many times to be a coincidence. You clearly believe it's true, even though I'm mystified as to how you reach your stage of life believing such things to be axiomatic.
Based on what?
I am stunned with admiration at the sheer weaseliness of Mr Abroad's post: he has identified the solution to the problem (because he is a thoughtful sort of chap and it is the correct solution, presumably) but anyone who agrees with him automatically outs himself as a crypto-fascist (which Mr A knew he was, anyway). Respect.
Ms. Apocalypse, the balance has shifted over time, generally reflecting shifts in public sentiment. There were far more lefties when I first joined in 2007. The only group that's consistently been under-represented (even in their heyday) is Scottish Labour.
This shift doesn't reflect public sentiment. Most people in this country don't like Trump.
Pb.com is not supposed to reflect public sentiment, it's supposed to discuss and debate betting angles on politics, preferably factoring in as much evidence and points of view as possible.
Stay. We all need to be challenged.
Re your first point: I mentioned it because it's been stated before that this site represents the wider public.
On your second point: I'm not leaving. If I join UKPR it'll simply be another site that I visit.
Most on here are eurosceptic to some degree. Most on this site hate the liberal left, let alone being 'centre-left'!
If everyone seems right wing to you, possibly its because you are some way out to the left ? I hear some Corbynites think that the Fabians are on the right!
I'm not a Corbynite. This is pretty much centre-right. Most are Conservatives/UKippers, most people are generally euro-sceptic.
No but you are considerably to the left of centre.
Most of the country is eurosceptic, even pretty committed remainers like TSE are eurosceptics, they just didn't think now that the right time to make a go of it.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Saying completely ridiculous things then backing off a bit may work in business, I'm not sure it will work internationally with say Kim Jon - Un
What twaddle - since when was being ridiculous in business a winner? And then you jump to the North Korea Godwin argument?
Is it not the case that Trump's method is to say extreme things as a tactic and then to back off a bit?
I don't care if it worked to get him elected. The guy is clearly unfit for high office.
What's truly worrying is that is a rare politician who isn't sent at least slightly bonkers by the demands of the highest positions e.g. sitting in the bunker thinking everyone is out to get them etc. Nixon, Wilson, Brown, Thatcher etc etc.
Trump is way ahead of the curve before he is even in the office.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I dont dislike Remainers or lefties. I still think of myself as a bit of a leftie really.
Undoubtedly most threads are written by Leavers. Card Carrying Conservatives can still hold views that are indistinguishable from Blairites.
At times, I think I've disagreed with almost everybody on this site about something, and they probably have with me likewise.
Funny thing is: a few years later, my views might have moved on, and so have theirs, to the point where we disagree about something else entirely, but might now agree about the point we disagreed about in the first place.
I never said that my conclusions on Trump/British public were based on BBC findings. There have been several non BBC commissioned polls done asking what people think of Trump and most don't have much time for him. Even Farage who is the closest equivalent to Trump in this country is not a popular figure. Him staying away from LEAVE's campaign really helped them.
Which is a some what weaker statement than saying they hate him, which is what were heard earlier.
"Trump ? Seriously ? You mean the guy that is on The Apprentice ? How did he get to be president ? Does he know what he is doing ?"
In other words more or less what people said about Reagan before he started, despite his state level political experience.
If I say I don't have time for someone, that usually means I dislike them. But I'll take your point on that one and re-correct my previous statement. Most polls show that they dislike Trump. For example:
Trump won enough of the "He says what he thinks, not what the pointy-heads in Washington want him to think." voters to win the Presidency. He'll probably carry on doing so. That's how Labour were trying to position Jezza this week
As for sexual shenanigans, there's a few ex-presidents who wouldn't want their own looked at in detail. Obama was a nice guy, but possibly too polite.to be effective in world affairs.
Putin is the opposite. When it comes to Syria, and IS sheltering in hospitals or towns, he's one for '!Kill them all and let God decide.' Morally indefensible, but effective.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I'd be saddened to see you leave.
Your views may - on occasion - be met with hostility and derision, but they are widely held views among a younger demographic and they are a harbinger for future shifts in public opinion.
Feminism spent decades being derided by the majority of the public (although this was likely to due to the paucity of female journalists, pundits, politicians and business leaders), but the principal that sexual equality is now so mainstream that to oppose it is a fringe view at best. The shift to acceptance of one's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is not complete but light years from mainstream opinion just 30 years ago. Anecdote: having dinner with friends, and was told that a boy had come out as gay at their son's school. It appears to have increased his popularity, which is a world apart from what the reaction would have been a generation ago: violence and isolation. (caveat: this was a fee-paying London school, so not particularly representative, but telling nevertheless.
Stay. Challenge. Fight. Educate. Please.
Thank you. Don't worry - I'm not leaving.
I'm also glad to hear that story about a young boy's coming out. Sadly, at the schools I attended kids would have still been bullied for their sexual orientation.
Happy to give evens to anyone who thinks that abortion will be very heavily restricted and/or made illegal by federal action (executive, congress or Constitution) under President Trump.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal in the federal US.
The overturning of Roe v Wade will allow the States to individually decide how they handle the issue. The Conservative states will be free to restrict abortions and the liberal states will be free to allow them.
I'm very happy with that - if you want one, go to a clinic that fits your needs. Anything over 24 weeks makes me recoil.
As a male Catholic it's generally a subject I try and avoid online for the obvious reasons, but in the US, more than the UK, it is a major political issue on both sides - some will argue against a morning after pill for a rape victim and others will argue for the right to what's basically infanticide.
I do think that one of the biggest societal travesties of the last decade in the UK was the treatment of the British Catholic adoption agencies, people (including a number of friends) who did very good work in supporting often vulnerable women through difficult times in their life.
I never said that my conclusions on Trump/British public were based on BBC findings. There have been several non BBC commissioned polls done asking what people think of Trump and most don't have much time for him. Even Farage who is the closest equivalent to Trump in this country is not a popular figure. Him staying away from LEAVE's campaign really helped them.
Which is a some what weaker statement than saying they hate him, which is what were heard earlier.
"Trump ? Seriously ? You mean the guy that is on The Apprentice ? How did he get to be president ? Does he know what he is doing ?"
In other words more or less what people said about Reagan before he started, despite his state level political experience.
If I say I don't have time for someone, that usually means I dislike them.
Yes but you are young yet, young people have strong opinions on everything, whereas those of us of a certain age struggle to give a cr@p about almost anything, such is the way of the world
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I didn't say, and don't believe that it does.
The media, and especially social media, was wrong about BrExit, because the people that run it and frequent it don't understand the sort of people that vote BrExit. They will be wrong about the sort of people that approve of Trump for the same reasons.
If BBC journalists can claim they found no evidence of Leave sentiment in London, and London voted 40% for Leave, how much credibility would you give to them saying they couldn't find anyone that supported Trump.
I would speculate that the vast majority of the politically indifferent population are rather bemused to see that chap they saw hosting The Apprentice about to step into the oval office, wonder if he is up to the job, and be concerned by the constant slating they here on the BBC. I doubt they "hate" him any more than they "hate" Farage.
Don't you think that both Trump and Farage are 'Marmite' politicians. I hope that not many people hate them, but feeling strongly about them and the effect that they have on their lives is to be expected.
I think they are for those interested in politics, for 90% of more of the population they are a face on their newspaper they flick past on the way to the sports pages.
I don't totally disagree, however Brexit seems to have brought more people into the group of "those interested in politics" in this country.
Putin is the opposite. When it comes to Syria, and IS sheltering in hospitals or towns, he's one for '!Kill them all and let God decide.' Morally indefensible, but effective.
and very very Russian - don't forget they are the arch-exponents of the scorched earth policy.
Most on here are eurosceptic to some degree. Most on this site hate the liberal left, let alone being 'centre-left'!
If everyone seems right wing to you, possibly its because you are some way out to the left ? I hear some Corbynites think that the Fabians are on the right!
I'm not a Corbynite. This is pretty much centre-right. Most are Conservatives/UKippers, most people are generally euro-sceptic.
No but you are considerably to the left of centre.
Most of the country is eurosceptic, even pretty committed remainers like TSE are eurosceptics, they just didn't think now that the right time to make a go of it.
I'd agree (well it's kind of undeniable) that most of the country is eurosceptic. I'm not a big fan of the EU myself, even though I voted Remain.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
Leaving aside the Yellowwatergate allegations, Trump hardly covered himself in glory with the ostensible purpose of the conference: his turning over of his business interests to a 'blind trust', run by his two sons, which has distinct Maxwellesque overtones.
That's no way blind. If I were a partner in Morgan, Lewis, I would be uncomfortable putting my name to this.
Re: Copeland. Clearly the Tories want to win it as they desperately need the seat (and need to compensate for the minus one of Zac's defeat, if nothing else) but I suspect it's as much about testing targeting strategies and messages as well if CCHQ are doing their job properly.
Your views may - on occasion - be met with hostility and derision, but they are widely held views among a younger demographic and they are a harbinger for future shifts in public opinion.
Hmmm...That's not usually the way it pans out. People become more conservative (small c) as they age and have a bigger stake in society. Political views are not fixed in stone at 17 forever to be stuck. Immigrants who've been here a while often oppose immigration for example. The young cohort who vote Labour (if they vote) today will vote Labour in massively smaller numbers in 40 years' time. We have an ageing popualtoin. This favours the Tories politically.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I miss the days when some Nats called me a far right Tory.
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
It would be nice to have some more sensible left centre chaps like yourself on PB. I miss the days of real debate over real policies ideas. Instead at the moment it is mostly,
insert headline -> insert because of Brexit / despite Brexit -> row over if it has anything to do with Brexit or not, rinse and repeat.
But then unfortunately our political masters have also appeared to decided to abandon new policy ideas, with the current battle of "more of the same" vs "back to the failed policies of the 70s".
PB has moved me to the left since i joined and started reading the posts (around 2009). This is partly down to the fact centre-left contributors like Southam and Nick Palmer are cogent and persuasive, but also because I probably wasn't as centre-right as I thought I was (political journey and all that) when - during my formative years - I harboured an irrational hatred of Gordon Brown's style of politics. Looking back, my desire to see Brown beaten clouded my judgement, and I often hung on to right-wing confirmation bias rather than remaining open-minded.
I now realise that I'd fit snugly in none of the parties..
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I miss the days when some Nats called me a far right Tory.
A banning offence, presumably..
Nah. If I used the banhammer on everybody who mocked or insulted me, PB would be a very quiet place.
The Texan Democrat swing was picked up, as was Utah.
One story that wasn't picked up was California. Of course its not important on the surfaces it was always going to go Democrat - but a 7% swing to the Democrats gives Trump an awful lot of votes elsewhere to take to be in line with on the surface good national polling for Hillary.
Because California counted so slowly this story was not picked up by the media - if California could actually count at a proper speed then the media narrative would have noted this far more than it did.
The swing state polling was also complete garbage !
The problem for the Democrats is that California doesn't matter any more in Presidential elections. Piling up votes in that State is pointless.
WRT State polls, they were good enough for Florida and North Carolina, putting Trump marginally ahead, even if understating his lead.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/stonehenge-tunnel-given-green-light-nearly-30-years-delays/
I'm sorry about your termination. It must have been a very difficult decision for you to make.
I'm pro-choice but even I don't agree with things such as a partial-birth abortion. I also agree with you that I feel uncomfortable with third-trimester abortions. But at least you give exceptions (like the mother's death). A lot of pro-lifers would have the mother die. My grandmother in the 1960s was pregnant with her fifth child and they told her that if she had the baby she'd die. My grandmother already had four children to look after (including my mum). So she had to have an abortion, but she didn't want to and it hurts personally to see some of these pro-lifers imply that all women who have an abortion are evil/murderers because of my own family history.
@david_herdson At the time when it was reported the headlines I saw was that he wanted to punish women who'd had abortions. It's only now that I've seen the caveat. AlsoIndigo said it was misreported....
@John_M Thanks. I think many on here wouldn't call themselves Trump supporters, but do seem to be defending Trump a lot.
Same with Windsor Castle being on the Heathrow flightpath.
(It is ironic isn't it, as an aside, how America sometimes resembles Iran more than France, given both its current obsessions and its founding history?)
@YBarddCwsc I don't know why Trump's enemies are pushing this Russian hookers thing. Even if was true, it won't change how his supporters view him. The more concerning part is that he is, to quote foxinsoxuk 'Russia's bitch.'
As someone who spent far too much time in the traffic jams at Stonehenge (used to live in Salisbury and still have a place there) I can't wait for them to actually build the tunnel. But they've been talking about it for so long, I'll believe it only when I'm actually in the tunnel!
Also just because people don't support Trump doesnt mean that have to support every half-arsed, evidence-free media attack on him either. Its entirely respectable to think Trump is a dangerous idiot, and to also think that Buzzfeed were irresponsible and unprofessional in giving such prominence to an unsupported and uncorroborated hatchet job.
I am now rather unreassured.
Like Farage, Trump is a sensitive and self-centred narcissist who cares far more about himself than anything else, including his job or his country.
I presume the diplomatic service and Theresa May know this, or have behavioural psychologists that do - and that the way to get the most of him is through stroking his ego and other non-traditional methods because the formal rules of diplomacy might not work - but one can never be sure.
I also can't see May and Trump getting along at all - massively different personality types - but I really hope I'm wrong.
The overturning of Roe v Wade will allow the States to individually decide how they handle the issue. The Conservative states will be free to restrict abortions and the liberal states will be free to allow them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/12/copeland-byelection-labour-candidates-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=share_btn_tw
Countless times you've suggested on here that many pb'ers, generally those on the Right, are actually secret quasi-fascists who want to suspend democracy and shoot anyone vaguely Left-wing in the head.
It's happened far too many times to be a coincidence. You clearly believe it's true, even though I'm mystified as to how you reach your stage of life believing such things to be axiomatic.
Based on what?
Trump is unpopular in this country. Voting for Brexit doesn't mean you like Trump.
I loathed Gordon and can't be objective about him.
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
BUT in return:
No above inflation pay rises for staff; no more blimmin PFI; reforms that actually work.
Lamb's right on this one, all parties need to bang their heads together - the population is aging so the healthcare system needs more cash.
Not to be pissed away like Brown did though.
Most on here are eurosceptic to some degree. Most on this site hate the liberal left, let alone being 'centre-left'!
I've usually been given impossible targets to meet that I've given up on within a fortnight. Now, I set my own targets (not dissimilar to yours) that are smaller, more achievable - and thus motivating - build up my challenge in my own time.
Now he has to govern which is totally different.
I'd say that the board overall is moderate *whatever*. The headbangers much prefer to live in their Twitter echo chambers. Yes, we do have a few members of the Petulantariat still refighting the EUref, but that seems to have diminished somewhat.
The only group who are over represented are probably the Lib Dems, which is hardly surprising.
Stay. We all need to be challenged.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
The media, and especially social media, was wrong about BrExit, because the people that run it and frequent it don't understand the sort of people that vote BrExit. They will be wrong about the sort of people that approve of Trump for the same reasons.
If BBC journalists can claim they found no evidence of Leave sentiment in London, and London voted 40% for Leave, how much credibility would you give to them saying they couldn't find anyone that supported Trump.
I would speculate that the vast majority of the politically indifferent population are rather bemused to see that chap they saw hosting The Apprentice about to step into the oval office, wonder if he is up to the job, and be concerned by the constant slating they here on the BBC. I doubt they "hate" him any more than they "hate" Farage.
On your second point: I'm not leaving. If I join UKPR it'll simply be another site that I visit.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
Undoubtedly most threads are written by Leavers. Card Carrying Conservatives can still hold views that are indistinguishable from Blairites.
I hope that not many people hate them, but feeling strongly about them and the effect that they have on their lives is to be expected.
Plenty of people prefer to life their lives with a comfort blanket of a relatively black and white world-view which they like and they don't have to think about too much.
insert headline -> insert because of Brexit / despite Brexit -> row over if it has anything to do with Brexit or not, rinse and repeat.
But then unfortunately our political masters have also appeared to decided to abandon new policy ideas, with the current battle of "more of the same" vs "back to the failed policies of the 70s".
Publish enough polls and some of them will be right (ish).
Sometimes hard truths need to be told. Especially to people who mistakenly believe Caesar to be a superior general to Hannibal.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
I can't believe the London centric media has written so much about Copeland already without any reference to Jam-eating.
The Texan Democrat swing was picked up, as was Utah.
One story that wasn't picked up was California. Of course its not important on the surfaces it was always going to go Democrat - but a 7% swing to the Democrats gives Trump an awful lot of votes elsewhere to take to be in line with on the surface good national polling for Hillary.
Because California counted so slowly this story was not picked up by the media - if California could actually count at a proper speed then the media narrative would have noted this far more than it did.
The swing state polling was also complete garbage !
"Trump ? Seriously ? You mean the guy that is on The Apprentice ? How did he get to be president ? Does he know what he is doing ?"
In other words more or less what people said about Reagan before he started, despite his state level political experience.
Your views may - on occasion - be met with hostility and derision, but they are widely held views among a younger demographic and they are a harbinger for future shifts in public opinion.
Feminism spent decades being derided by the majority of the public (although this was likely to due to the paucity of female journalists, pundits, politicians and business leaders), but the principal that sexual equality is now so mainstream that to oppose it is a fringe view at best.
The shift to acceptance of one's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is not complete but light years from mainstream opinion just 30 years ago. Anecdote: having dinner with friends, and was told that a boy had come out as gay at their son's school. It appears to have increased his popularity, which is a world apart from what the reaction would have been a generation ago: violence and isolation. (caveat: this was a fee-paying London school, so not particularly representative, but telling nevertheless.
Stay. Challenge. Fight. Educate. Please.
Most of the country is eurosceptic, even pretty committed remainers like TSE are eurosceptics, they just didn't think now that the right time to make a go of it.
What's truly worrying is that is a rare politician who isn't sent at least slightly bonkers by the demands of the highest positions e.g. sitting in the bunker thinking everyone is out to get them etc. Nixon, Wilson, Brown, Thatcher etc etc.
Trump is way ahead of the curve before he is even in the office.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/819507320392712192
Funny thing is: a few years later, my views might have moved on, and so have theirs, to the point where we disagree about something else entirely, but might now agree about the point we disagreed about in the first place.
Debates are always fluid. This is healthy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-president-wins-us-elections-world-more-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-poll-international-countries-uk-hillary-clinton-rcp-us-presidential-live-election-a7367591.htmldangerous-place-opinion-poll-british-public-a7413756.html
Trump won enough of the "He says what he thinks, not what the pointy-heads in Washington want him to think." voters to win the Presidency. He'll probably carry on doing so. That's how Labour were trying to position Jezza this week
As for sexual shenanigans, there's a few ex-presidents who wouldn't want their own looked at in detail. Obama was a nice guy, but possibly too polite.to be effective in world affairs.
Putin is the opposite. When it comes to Syria, and IS sheltering in hospitals or towns, he's one for '!Kill them all and let God decide.' Morally indefensible, but effective.
What. A. Twat.
I'm also glad to hear that story about a young boy's coming out. Sadly, at the schools I attended kids would have still been bullied for their sexual orientation.
I do think that one of the biggest societal travesties of the last decade in the UK was the treatment of the British Catholic adoption agencies, people (including a number of friends) who did very good work in supporting often vulnerable women through difficult times in their life.
Some polling would be nice.
http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/other/Liberal-Democrats-announce-candidate-for-Copeland-by-election-05ba68d6-c599-439b-8d54-27d50900eaab-ds
Hmmm...That's not usually the way it pans out. People become more conservative (small c) as they age and have a bigger stake in society. Political views are not fixed in stone at 17 forever to be stuck. Immigrants who've been here a while often oppose immigration for example. The young cohort who vote Labour (if they vote) today will vote Labour in massively smaller numbers in 40 years' time. We have an ageing popualtoin. This favours the Tories politically.
I now realise that I'd fit snugly in none of the parties..
WRT State polls, they were good enough for Florida and North Carolina, putting Trump marginally ahead, even if understating his lead.
They were very poor for the mid-West.