As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.
Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?
A second referendum is either “on the table”, “highly likely”, “more likely”, “off the table”, or “all but inevitable”. The First Minister seems to be approaching a second referendum in the way Simone Zaza approaches a World Cup penalty. An understanding of the swing voters from 2014 offers clues to why she is so reluctant to take her shot.
WTF, as if TUBA would have any clue. Get over your hatred and enjoy your life. I know reality is difficult from tax exile , but you could at least try to get some objective opinions.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
And, at the same, that women within the Left should also Know Their Place.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.
Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?
Overturning Roe Vs Wade and returning abortion to the states = banning abortion, in the US abortion debate.
Prosecuting doctors etc for illegal abortions is essentially blocked in all countries that allow abortion.
The abortion debate has resulted in some strange positions - the ferocity of the emotions involved have twisted people like metal in a furnace.
Mr. Max, indeed, but we shouldn't forget the sheer incompetence of the Clinton campaign. Calling half the electorate deplorable and utterly misdirecting the deployment of resources cost her. She could've, and should've won the electoral college.
Ms. Apocalypse, there are lots of blind spots. Ask people about private provision in the NHS and lots of people are a bit iffy about it. Even though GPs are all private sector.
Or consider the political consensus on using the polygraph on paedophiles to ensure they're not re-offending when out of prison. A lie-detector is a fictitious concept, but the politicians of all major parties approved of the move.
Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:
"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".
The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.
What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.
A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.
I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.
We discussed this a few weeks ago, but there's an update, Cowley Tech further confirms its status as a dump
Oxford University faces a landmark trial over a claim for $1.6 million compensation from a student who alleges “boring” and “appallingly bad” tuition cost him a first-class degree and robbed him of the high-flying legal career he coveted.
The university had applied to the High Court to strike out the claim for damages by Faiz Siddiqui, who studied modern history at Brasenose College more than 16 years ago, arguing it was “hopelessly bad” and “time barred”.
However, in an 18-page judgment, Mr Justice Kerr refused to do so and instead ruled that Oxford “has a case to answer” and that the arguments should be heard in a trial “as soon as possible”.
To be honest if I was Hizzoner Kerr, I'd have thrown the case out saying Siddiqui should have been aware that it is common knowledge for centuries that Oxford is hopelessly bad.
Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?
Where is the coalition for Carswell coming from? A party of one. He is in the circa 1/3 of MPs that wanted to LEAVE the EU. Up to 2/3 of the Conservative MPs probably do not want him and amongst Labour it will be almost 8 in 10 MPs against. In the SNP MPs probably close to 100% against.
I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.
The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.
It's absurd from so called professional reporters.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
We discussed this a few weeks ago, but there's an update, Cowley Tech further confirms its status as a dump
Oxford University faces a landmark trial over a claim for $1.6 million compensation from a student who alleges “boring” and “appallingly bad” tuition cost him a first-class degree and robbed him of the high-flying legal career he coveted.
Doesn't a 'contract' when you sign up for a place at a university state in effect that the final grades are at the sole discretion of the university to be award in any way and on any basis that they see fit. ?
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.
The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.
It's absurd from so called professional reporters.
The Trump White House lied. The live television pictures shows that they were well down on the ones for Obama's inauguration. That's not the MSM's fault.
How is the investigation of the Trump Foundation for charity fraud in the state of New York progressing? It was ordered to produce papers but then, whaddayaknow, it was given an extension until after the election. It had been collecting money for years claiming it was a charity when it wasn't.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:
"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".
The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.
What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.
A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.
I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.
Of course - your side is better than the other side.
Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?
Where is the coalition for Carswell coming from? A party of one. He is in the circa 1/3 of MPs that wanted to LEAVE the EU. Up to 2/3 of the Conservative MPs probably do not want him and amongst Labour it will be almost 8 in 10 MPs against. In the SNP MPs probably close to 100% against.
It is the elites way of removing the only UKIP MP from being politically active in the House of Commons.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.
Who is the "we" in that statement. We, the British public, don't want to buy Chevy's for £10k. That's why we don't do it now. They're crap.
The one thing Trump's cabinet is stuffed with is businessmen, I'd expect trade deals to be good for the USA.
And bad for us. Poorer food standards. ISDS court for multinationals. One thing it won't deliver - Taking Back Control.
The US/EU tariffs are already relatively low. It is the regulations and standards that are the problem. US will insist for the UK that they are US standards. It might cause us problems exporting UK goods with US standard to the EU.
You mean we’d have to dumb down to the Septic standards?
Yes. I've wondered whether US obesity is caused in part by the growth hormone in their beef. Probably not, but who knows.
The US population are guinea pigs for the rest of us on food standards e.g. GM. The US approach is business led. You can use anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. The EU approach (and UK) is consumer led. You can use anything that is proven to be safe. There is a big gap in the middle. If we go for a US FTA we inevitably have to take the US approach.
The FDA (clue is in the name) might disagree with your assertion that good is unregulated in the US
Food is less regulated than drugs. Here is a quote from the FDA website.
"Under 21 CFR 170.30(c) and 170.3(f), general recognition of safety through experience based on common use in foods requires a substantial history of consumption for food use by a significant number of consumers."
The GRAS regulations are used in drugs as well ("generally recognised as safe"). It's not all molecules, but things like salt, pepper, basil, oregano, etc
As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.
Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?
IIRC, he's in favour of handing abortion decisions to the states - I agree with him.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Is immitating the disabled the same as mocking the disabled for being disabled?
Can people not be mocked or their political views if they happen to be disabled?
hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media
I know I'm not going to convince you of this but just to point out the logical possibility, it may actually be that it isn't the media that's suffering from confirmation bias, it's you.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Is immitating the disabled the same as mocking the disabled for being disabled.
Can people not be mocked or their political views if they happen to be disabled?
Their views can be mocked, of course. I'd say their disability should be off-limits. But I am a venal leftie, so I am probably wrong ;-)
Wouldn't it be more worrying if a senior member of the Cabinet had not known?
At the risk of introducing facts.. as far as I can tell, since the beginning of the TRident II program, there have been 157 successful flight tests and 6 failures (including partial successes).
The classic method for estimating the maximum probability of failure is a very simple equation :
This is considered a harsh maximum estimate, since most of the failures occurred in the early days of the program - which then conformed to the classic "bathtub" curve of early failures followed by massive increase in reliability.
This enables us to say that Trident II is reliable at delivering it's warheads to target as a *lower bound* (i.e. it is almost certainly better than this) of 96.3%
Which in historical terms makes it one of the most reliable weapons in human history....
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
I imagine the Evangelical Christian right had no problems with that either.
nor it appears do you
I am totally opposed to capital punishment for whatever reason.
and yet there you are ramping predator Bill back in to the White House
No, I'm not.
we could play pantomime all day, but the the reality is both the left and right have been wearing each others clothes for the last 20 years. DJT and HRC were both crap candidates unfortunately one of them had to win.
I'll happily look at DJT' based on what he does but on the personality front the alternative was no better.
Diane Abbot being eaten alive on BBC One just now. Without any difficult questions.
All the Tories, UKIP or indeed the Lib Dems have to do to win any argument about Brexit (v. Labour) is simply show that interview to the electorate.
Andrew Neil at his best. Diane Abbot almost lost her cool. You could hear the panic and anger rising in her voice.
In answer to his question "if your objective is to remain a member of the single market, you must accept freedom of movement. Is that not correct?", the answer she should have given is "No it is not correct. It hasn't been tested. The negotiation hasn't begun. But the PM has thrown her hand in and will not even test that. She threw her hand in to preserve the unity of her party, not to further the interests of the UK".
In reality the negotiation has begun of course, all sorts of civil servants on all sides will have been sounding out the playing field for months. They won't know the details, because all sides are being rightly closed mouthed about their ultimate position. But everyone is going to have a fair idea of what is going to be up for negotiation, and what is never going to be on the table. The EU have made it abundantly clear in High Definition and from multiple vantage points the the four freedoms are indivisible, and if you are in the single market all must apply to all members.
The four freedoms (goods, services, capital, labour) are to support the single market in furthering trade. Labour is jobs not citizenship. The extension to citizenship had a political motive (ever closer union) not a trade motive. So it is divisible. There are also fudges available e.g. taking up the seven year adjustment period rejected by Blair in 2004. There was plenty to negotiate (including a big sum of money to help balance the EU budget) but she didn't even try.
The seven year adjustment period was a one-off transition that has expired already, not a permanent feature.
Yes I know. It would need to be negotiated. But it would provide grounds that would save face all round.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Is immitating the disabled the same as mocking the disabled for being disabled.
Can people not be mocked or their political views if they happen to be disabled?
Their views can be mocked, of course. I'd say their disability should be off-limits. But I am a venal leftie, so I am probably wrong ;-)
and yet it's ok to label Leave voters as thickos ?
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.
Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.
For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.
Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.
In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.
Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.
Is immitating the disabled the same as mocking the disabled for being disabled.
Can people not be mocked or their political views if they happen to be disabled?
Trump used exactly the same werrr werrr piss-taking of others before this - SO dislikes Trump more than I did Gordon. That's saying something - he'll find any reason to confirm his views. That's fine, I can recognise it - it doesn't make it a fair assessment.
Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:
"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".
The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.
What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.
A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.
I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.
Of course - your side is better than the other side.
Well we all think our side is correct or at least better. However the refusal of part of the left to accept the results of elections and the criticism and implication of moral torpor aimed at those who oppose it is fairly unedifying. Of course the right aren't immune to this as some of the accusations levelled at those who opposed Leave in the referendum show.
Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?
Reason 1: the below-the-line comments bear no resemblance to the header Reason 2: the header relates to an event 18 months from now and the tip reduces to "this person can do the job and it would be in this person's interest if he got it". So it's not enough info to lock up money for that long
I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.
The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.
It's absurd from so called professional reporters.
I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.
The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.
It's absurd from so called professional reporters.
The Trump White House lied. The live television pictures shows that they were well down on the ones for Obama's inauguration. That's not the MSM's fault.
You should know better than try to have a sane discussion with Plato. Anything she doesn't like is airily dismissed as conspiracies, absolutely nothing is going to convince her Trumps wasn't the biglyest inauguration crowd in the world ever.
Mr. Observer, almost as if we should have an English Parliament
MD , you already have one it is called Westminster and has 80% plus of the MP's and a de facto dictatorship on what happens in the UK, ie it is always what England ( London elite ) wants nowadays, there is no sense of partnership or caring and as Casino etc say , it will indeed be only the England parliament in the near future.
Donald J Trump Wow, television ratings just out: 31 million people watched the Inauguration, 11 million more than the very good ratings from 4 years ago!
Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.
The ONS estimates for 2014 show that one in eight (13 percent) of the usual UK resident population were born overseas. It will be higher for London but lower for Scotland but each different to England ex London.
Diane Abbot being eaten alive on BBC One just now. Without any difficult questions.
All the Tories, UKIP or indeed the Lib Dems have to do to win any argument about Brexit (v. Labour) is simply show that interview to the electorate.
Andrew Neil at his best. Diane Abbot almost lost her cool. You could hear the panic and anger rising in her voice.
In answer to his question "if your objective is to remain a member of the single market, you must accept freedom of movement. Is that not correct?", the answer she should have given is "No it is not correct. It hasn't been tested. The negotiation hasn't begun. But the PM has thrown her hand in and will not even test that. She threw her hand in to preserve the unity of her party, not to further the interests of the UK".
In reality the negotiation has begun of course, all sorts of civil servants on all sides will have been sounding out the playing field for months. They won't know the details, because all sides are being rightly closed mouthed about their ultimate position. But everyone is going to have a fair idea of what is going to be up for negotiation, and what is never going to be on the table. The EU have made it abundantly clear in High Definition and from multiple vantage points the the four freedoms are indivisible, and if you are in the single market all must apply to all members.
The four freedoms (goods, services, capital, labour) are to support the single market in furthering trade. Labour is jobs not citizenship. The extension to citizenship had a political motive (ever closer union) not a trade motive. So it is divisible. There are also fudges available e.g. taking up the seven year adjustment period rejected by Blair in 2004. There was plenty to negotiate (including a big sum of money to help balance the EU budget) but she didn't even try.
And I just shook my head when I read that Trump's first action was to stop the FHA mortgage insurance cut.
It's a voter-pandering market-distorting bung, not to mention a concealed subsidy for real-estate developers, so if he were to carry on like he's started that would be seriously encouraging. Next step, nationwide federal VAT...
As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.
Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?
He was not misquoted at all. It was a standard question asked to anti abortion advocats and Trump flubbed by telling the truth as posed to the flim flam nonsense where anti abortionists pretend they won't prosecute women. The press accurately reported what trump said and the trump camp issued retraction and flip flop after flip flop
Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?
Reason 1: the below-the-line comments bear no resemblance to the header Reason 2: the header relates to an event 18 months from now and the tip reduces to "this person can do the job and it would be in this person's interest if he got it". So it's not enough info to lock up money for that long
Tennessee GOP And the hero of the day award goes to this guy! Pure fun. Let that be a lesson to all protesters! #whyIMarch #WattersWorld #WomensMarch https://t.co/kgkb3FJHdI
"Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?"
It is now 9 months that the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week pb.com has spent 97% of its time discussing brexit and related issues. Officially, this makes it the longest continuous debate in history.
"Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?"
It is now 9 months that the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week pb.com has spent 97% of its time discussing brexit and related issues. Officially, this makes it the longest continuous debate in history.
Jackson pointed to Trump’s low approval ratings and issued a challenge.
“What does a man with so much power do? Grace can expand your power. Arrogance can diminish it. I hope he’ll have the grace and commitment to put all of us under one big tent.”
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.
Diane Abbot being eaten alive on BBC One just now. Without any difficult questions.
All the Tories, UKIP or indeed the Lib Dems have to do to win any argument about Brexit (v. Labour) is simply show that interview to the electorate.
Andrew Neil at his best. Diane Abbot almost lost her cool. You could hear the panic and anger rising in her voice.
In answer to his question "if your objective is to remain a member of the single market, you must accept freedom of movement. Is that not correct?", the answer she should have given is "No it is not correct. It hasn't been tested. The negotiation hasn't begun. But the PM has thrown her hand in and will not even test that. She threw her hand in to preserve the unity of her party, not to further the interests of the UK".
In reality the negotiation has begun of course, all sorts of civil servants on all sides will have been sounding out the playing field for months. They won't know the details, because all sides are being rightly closed mouthed about their ultimate position. But everyone is going to have a fair idea of what is going to be up for negotiation, and what is never going to be on the table. The EU have made it abundantly clear in High Definition and from multiple vantage points the the four freedoms are indivisible, and if you are in the single market all must apply to all members.
The four freedoms (goods, services, capital, labour) are to support the single market in furthering trade. Labour is jobs not citizenship. The extension to citizenship had a political motive (ever closer union) not a trade motive. So it is divisible. There are also fudges available e.g. taking up the seven year adjustment period rejected by Blair in 2004. There was plenty to negotiate (including a big sum of money to help balance the EU budget) but she didn't even try.
How do you know it's not a negotiating position.
"This is valuable. It will cost you a lot"
"Nah. Don't really want it"
"Well what will you give us for it anyway?"
Yes - that would be good! May will go up in my estimation if that is her strategy. I hope it is, and that it succeeds, but very much I doubt it. And I suspect you do too.
Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:
"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".
The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.
What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.
A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.
I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.
Of course - your side is better than the other side.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.
More about Supreme Court justices IMHO.
Trump can nominate who he likes, but the only one who will get through the Senate and Congress easily are those with a very hard line against abortion - strike Roe vs Wade.
Hillary would have nominated pro-choice judges. She said so, clearly.
Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:
"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".
The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.
What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.
A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.
I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.
If teaching poor children for nothing makes you feel good, I welcome that.
But what's the problem with people feeling good who get off their butts and go on protest demonstrations because they refuse to accept that Trump's election should legitimise a ramping-up of the objectification of women?
I think your use of the notion "just as bad as anyone else" shows that my summary of the right-wing attitude was pretty on the ball.
Other than having contempt for the left and hatred for any view that comes from the collectivity of the lower orders about what kind of society we should live in that doesn't feature the lower orders being grateful to the privileged (cue contempt towards "chips on shoulders") and accepting of dog-eat-dog - what does the right stand for? The haves keeping what they've got, getting more of it, and keeping the have-nots in their place. The least hypocritical don't dress that up as beneficial to all parts of society.
Such a pretence wears thin when the working class has to be portrayed as the lazy and parasitic class and the rich as hardworking even while they're on the internet boasting about their Rolexes.
OT apropos of not much, just seeing this through my Twitters where they're talking about all the people signing up to help the Dems in 2018. https://swingleft.org/
They're trying to point people to their nearest swing district, so they can go down there to help out.
If you live in Seattle, your nearest swing district is 700 miles away.
Diane Abbot being eaten alive on BBC One just now. Without any difficult questions.
All the Tories, UKIP or indeed the Lib Dems have to do to win any argument about Brexit (v. Labour) is simply show that interview to the electorate.
Andrew Neil at his best. Diane Abbot almost lost her cool. You could hear the panic and anger rising in her voice.
In answer to his question "if your objective is to remain a member of the single market, you must accept freedom of movement. Is that not correct?", the answer she should have given is "No it is not correct. It hasn't been tested. The negotiation hasn't begun. But the PM has thrown her hand in and will not even test that. She threw her hand in to preserve the unity of her party, not to further the interests of the UK".
The four freedoms (goods, services, capital, labour) are to support the single market in furthering trade. Labour is jobs not citizenship. The extension to citizenship had a political motive (ever closer union) not a trade motive. So it is divisible. There are also fudges available e.g. taking up the seven year adjustment period rejected by Blair in 2004. There was plenty to negotiate (including a big sum of money to help balance the EU budget) but she didn't even try.
How do you know it's not a negotiating position.
"This is valuable. It will cost you a lot"
"Nah. Don't really want it"
"Well what will you give us for it anyway?"
Yes - that would be good! May will go up in my estimation if that is her strategy. I hope it is, and that it succeeds, but very much I doubt it. And I suspect you do too.
Hammond has been very clear on this topic, I don't think he could have put it any more lucidly than he did at the WEF.
I was part of a team (I was responsible for CAME/EMEA) negotiating high value, complex multi-country, muli-region commercial deals for around seven years (from '93 on). I can't fault May's opening negotiating stance. It takes a lot of the emotion out of the initial engagement.
I know some Brits think that we can negotiate over the T&Cs of FoM, but there's absolutely no evidence that any of our counterparties are prepared to do so, noises off from the Visigrad group notwithstanding.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.
More about Supreme Court justices IMHO.
Trump can nominate who he likes, but the only one who will get through the Senate and Congress easily are those with a very hard line against abortion - strike Roe vs Wade.
Hillary would have nominated pro-choice judges. She said so, clearly.
Hillary wants partial birth abortion legalised; she wants illegal immigrants to be given citizenship; her party favours affirmative action and radical equality legislation; her party welcomes speech codes at universities; they rail against the police; they litigate against nuns who won't provide abortificients; they fine States that disagree with them on transgender issues. Why on earth would evangelicals find any of that attractive?
That is a fantastic high definition photo. You can zoom into great detail. I'm not sure it does contradict the other photo taken from behind because of the perspective. The other photo had a time stamp of 11.47. Perhaps a few hundred thousand people rushed in at the last minute for his speech? Even in the HD CNN photo, the furthest block seems to be empty unlike the Obama occasion.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.
More about Supreme Court justices IMHO.
Trump can nominate who he likes, but the only one who will get through the Senate and Congress easily are those with a very hard line against abortion - strike Roe vs Wade.
Hillary would have nominated pro-choice judges. She said so, clearly.
Only the Senate (the House has no say) and the Dems will fight to the bitter end.
@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!
Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.
When you say "lip service", are you talking about pussy grabbing?
We discussed this a few weeks ago, but there's an update, Cowley Tech further confirms its status as a dump
Oxford University faces a landmark trial over a claim for $1.6 million compensation from a student who alleges “boring” and “appallingly bad” tuition cost him a first-class degree and robbed him of the high-flying legal career he coveted.
The university had applied to the High Court to strike out the claim for damages by Faiz Siddiqui, who studied modern history at Brasenose College more than 16 years ago, arguing it was “hopelessly bad” and “time barred”.
However, in an 18-page judgment, Mr Justice Kerr refused to do so and instead ruled that Oxford “has a case to answer” and that the arguments should be heard in a trial “as soon as possible”.
To be honest if I was Hizzoner Kerr, I'd have thrown the case out saying Siddiqui should have been aware that it is common knowledge for centuries that Oxford is hopelessly bad.
Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.
Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales, NI and London their own Assemblies, it is provincial England which lacks representation
Could the democrats filibuster a supreme court nomination for another 4 years?
They certainly may try depending on whom Trump nominates. They are also mad that the GOP Senate leadership did not progress Obama's nominee on preposterously spurious grounds. Could become very nasty.
Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.
He was just the same in the debates. Tiny things "triggered" him and diverted him from the main point. Remember how he reacted to the beauty queen thing.
Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.
Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales, NI and London their own Assemblies, it is provincial England which lacks representation
It's the power of the Parliaments and their ability to raise cash that needs to be looked at. And provincial England and its other big cities do also need to be in the mix, of that there is no doubt. Brexit is actually a great opportunity to review this and come up with something that will work for the 21st century.
Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?
Reason 1: the below-the-line comments bear no resemblance to the header Reason 2: the header relates to an event 18 months from now and the tip reduces to "this person can do the job and it would be in this person's interest if he got it". So it's not enough info to lock up money for that long
A knife through the heart of TSE.
No one can get on these bets in more than a couple of quid. Its not even worth the bother. I am sure they are put up just so they can mention that the prices has moved as it will when the bookie has more than a grand exposure
Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.
He was just the same in the debates. Tiny things "triggered" him and diverted him from the main point. Remember how he reacted to the beauty queen thing.
I have no idea if it's calculated by him or not but everytime the media concentrates on his tantrums instead of policy is a win for him. Whilst everyone was screaming about this latest sideshow he signed a mandate to basically gut Obamacare.
Begining to think he will be re-elected now because the MSM have learnt no lessons.
Yep, makes sense. But methods will be developed to counter it. Trump has first adopter advantage on this blatant and demonstrable lie strategy and it is undoubtedly very effective. But others will catch up and surpass.
I agree with basically this analysis other than I don't think it is about laying down the law now, trump has been playing the lying media angle for 18 months. And what allows him to get away with it is the media lost any sense of balance and have spun every little thing as negatively about him to the extent that they have lied about him.
Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.
He was just the same in the debates. Tiny things "triggered" him and diverted him from the main point. Remember how he reacted to the beauty queen thing.
I have no idea if it's calculated by him or not but everytime the media concentrates on his tantrums instead of policy is a win for him. Whilst everyone was screaming about this latest sideshow he signed a mandate to basically gut Obamacare.
Begining to think he will be re-elected now because the MSM have learnt no lessons.
Oh, I think they will learn. At the moment, they are reeling - trying to work it all out. But work it out they will. As the alt-right likes to point out, there are a lot of Democrats in the media and in Silicon Valley.
Hammond has been very clear on this topic, I don't think he could have put it any more lucidly than he did at the WEF.
I was part of a team (I was responsible for CAME/EMEA) negotiating high value, complex multi-country, muli-region commercial deals for around seven years (from '93 on). I can't fault May's opening negotiating stance. It takes a lot of the emotion out of the initial engagement.
I know some Brits think that we can negotiate over the T&Cs of FoM, but there's absolutely no evidence that any of our counterparties are prepared to do so, noises off from the Visigrad group notwithstanding.
Ultimately the two sides will deal because each side offers something the other side wants. I would prefer it not to be quite so ultimately as May indicated in her speech. But I guess you have th be realistic when negotiating with a partner that is resentful, doesn't owe you any favours and is generally uninterested anyway. For our side it's straightforward: we want market access. What could we offer that the EU countries want? Access to our market isn't sufficient currency. My thinking is our diplomatic support for the EU could count for quite a lot. A sort of "special relationship". Of course it could run into contradiction with our other special relationship, which would be interesting.
Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.
Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales, NI and London their own Assemblies, it is provincial England which lacks representation
It's the power of the Parliaments and their ability to raise cash that needs to be looked at. And provincial England and its other big cities do also need to be in the mix, of that there is no doubt. Brexit is actually a great opportunity to review this and come up with something that will work for the 21st century.
Jackson pointed to Trump’s low approval ratings and issued a challenge.
“What does a man with so much power do? Grace can expand your power. Arrogance can diminish it. I hope he’ll have the grace and commitment to put all of us under one big tent.”
Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.
Excluding Obama and possibly Clinton on his first inauguration, Trump got the biggest crowds of any recent president. Whatever your views of Obama as a man and as a politician, most people would accept the symbolism of the first black president of the United States is infinitely greater than the election of reality show presenter cum businessman. The gracious thing would be to acknowledge how much America has moved forward in electing a black persistent. Trump doesn't do gracious however.
I think he's neurotic, but also calculating. Part of his MO is to undermine the independent media.
Comments
Prosecuting doctors etc for illegal abortions is essentially blocked in all countries that allow abortion.
The abortion debate has resulted in some strange positions - the ferocity of the emotions involved have twisted people like metal in a furnace.
Ms. Apocalypse, there are lots of blind spots. Ask people about private provision in the NHS and lots of people are a bit iffy about it. Even though GPs are all private sector.
Or consider the political consensus on using the polygraph on paedophiles to ensure they're not re-offending when out of prison. A lie-detector is a fictitious concept, but the politicians of all major parties approved of the move.
Oxford University faces a landmark trial over a claim for $1.6 million compensation from a student who alleges “boring” and “appallingly bad” tuition cost him a first-class degree and robbed him of the high-flying legal career he coveted.
The university had applied to the High Court to strike out the claim for damages by Faiz Siddiqui, who studied modern history at Brasenose College more than 16 years ago, arguing it was “hopelessly bad” and “time barred”.
However, in an 18-page judgment, Mr Justice Kerr refused to do so and instead ruled that Oxford “has a case to answer” and that the arguments should be heard in a trial “as soon as possible”.
To be honest if I was Hizzoner Kerr, I'd have thrown the case out saying Siddiqui should have been aware that it is common knowledge for centuries that Oxford is hopelessly bad.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/oxford-university-ordered-to-face-trial-over-bad-teaching/news-story/16608fda7aeafb11c902dd15f38166ee
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-has-been-a-really-bad-week-for-journalism/article/2612586?custom_click=rss
I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.
The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.
It's absurd from so called professional reporters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector
That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.
I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.
To the tories: He's a Labour stooge.
To the Lib Dems: who?
Can people not be mocked or their political views if they happen to be disabled?
The classic method for estimating the maximum probability of failure is a very simple equation :
failures / total flights
See https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013705.pdf
which gives us :
6/163 = 0.0368 = 3.6% maximum chance of failure.
This is considered a harsh maximum estimate, since most of the failures occurred in the early days of the program - which then conformed to the classic "bathtub" curve of early failures followed by massive increase in reliability.
This enables us to say that Trident II is reliable at delivering it's warheads to target as a *lower bound* (i.e. it is almost certainly better than this) of 96.3%
Which in historical terms makes it one of the most reliable weapons in human history....
I'll happily look at DJT' based on what he does but on the personality front the alternative was no better.
Reason 2: the header relates to an event 18 months from now and the tip reduces to "this person can do the job and it would be in this person's interest if he got it". So it's not enough info to lock up money for that long
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/comparison-withtime-1024x576.jpg
40 years in UK which is why Jezza needs to find his inner Donald
https://youtu.be/GMBqDN7-QLg
Donald J Trump
Wow, television ratings just out: 31 million people watched the Inauguration, 11 million more than the very good ratings from 4 years ago!
"This is valuable. It will cost you a lot"
"Nah. Don't really want it"
"Well what will you give us for it anyway?"
Tennessee GOP
And the hero of the day award goes to this guy! Pure fun. Let that be a lesson to all protesters!
#whyIMarch #WattersWorld #WomensMarch https://t.co/kgkb3FJHdI
EU: "OK"
TM: "We'll be fine without it"
EU: "OK"
TM: "Look guys, NO means NO"
EU: "OK"
TM: "Great. Since I'm here anyway, how much would it be?"
International Spectator
UNITED STATES: Civil rights activist Jessie Jackson says Trump's inaugural speech was 'full of hope and inclusion'
It is now 9 months that the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week pb.com has spent 97% of its time discussing brexit and related issues. Officially, this makes it the longest continuous debate in history.
(ps. I made up all these figures)
“I’m hopeful. There’s an awful lot of damage done that needs to be cleaned up,” he said. “The campaign was very divisive and very painful… Referring to President Barack (Obama) as the founder of ISIS, Hillary (Clinton) as a nasty woman. He’ll have to have to clean that stuff up and then put forth some concrete plans.”
Jackson pointed to Trump’s low approval ratings and issued a challenge.
“What does a man with so much power do? Grace can expand your power. Arrogance can diminish it. I hope he’ll have the grace and commitment to put all of us under one big tent.”
Trump can nominate who he likes, but the only one who will get through the Senate and Congress easily are those with a very hard line against abortion - strike Roe vs Wade.
Hillary would have nominated pro-choice judges. She said so, clearly.
But what's the problem with people feeling good who get off their butts and go on protest demonstrations because they refuse to accept that Trump's election should legitimise a ramping-up of the objectification of women?
I think your use of the notion "just as bad as anyone else" shows that my summary of the right-wing attitude was pretty on the ball.
Other than having contempt for the left and hatred for any view that comes from the collectivity of the lower orders about what kind of society we should live in that doesn't feature the lower orders being grateful to the privileged (cue contempt towards "chips on shoulders") and accepting of dog-eat-dog - what does the right stand for? The haves keeping what they've got, getting more of it, and keeping the have-nots in their place. The least hypocritical don't dress that up as beneficial to all parts of society.
Such a pretence wears thin when the working class has to be portrayed as the lazy and parasitic class and the rich as hardworking even while they're on the internet boasting about their Rolexes.
@nytpolitics CNN just contradicted you with this picture...looks like more people for Trump than you show? https://t.co/DemnUhiFch
https://swingleft.org/
They're trying to point people to their nearest swing district, so they can go down there to help out.
If you live in Seattle, your nearest swing district is 700 miles away.
I was part of a team (I was responsible for CAME/EMEA) negotiating high value, complex multi-country, muli-region commercial deals for around seven years (from '93 on). I can't fault May's opening negotiating stance. It takes a lot of the emotion out of the initial engagement.
I know some Brits think that we can negotiate over the T&Cs of FoM, but there's absolutely no evidence that any of our counterparties are prepared to do so, noises off from the Visigrad group notwithstanding.
Your "eating frogs in Texas" anecdote is well up there in my PB All-Time Top 10. Given that SeanT posts here, that's quite the achievement.
https://hypermind.com/hypermind/app.html?fwd=#welcome
When will Donald Trump first shake hands with Vladimir Putin?
In 2016
1%
First quarter 2017
50%
Second quarter 2017
32%
Third quarter 2017
9%
Fourth quarter 2017
3%
Not before 2018
5%
Surely the 11/1 on "Third quarter 2017" (G20 meeting is in early July) & also 20/1 on "Not before 2018" are both fantastic value?
Why would there be an 82% chance they will meet and shake hands in the next 23 weeks?
Does anyone know if these odds/percentages are actual prices that punters can bet at?
Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.
Won't be long before your celebrating your birthday in an independent Scotland!
Begining to think he will be re-elected now because the MSM have learnt no lessons.
NEW THREAD
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/american-carnage-the-trump-era-begins/513971/
Takeaway conclusion - even Andrew Jackson made more of an effort.
I think he's neurotic, but also calculating. Part of his MO is to undermine the independent media.