Democrats shouldn't filibuster the scotus nominee. He's fine as far as nominees go and seems unlikely to be a trump stooge. Additionally, filibustering him will drive mainstream republicans closer to trump, when the democrat strategy should be to split the gop from the trump. They need to swallow their pride on Merrick garland and other obstructionist tactics from previous years. The voters had a chance to punish the GOP for their actions and chose not to.
I agree with the recommendation and the strategy.
It does sting though that basically the republicans got exactly what they wanted from totally disrespecting the constitution.... Oh well.
So, it turns out that the multiple character attacks on Sir Ivan Rogers on here and in the right wing press as a Euro-fanatic and a traitor may not have been entirely fair. Whoever would have thought it?
But clearly sees it all as a huge set of problems and focuses on why any change is next to impossible. Does not have much of a can do attitude. Not the type of person to put at the head of a project.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster the scotus nominee. He's fine as far as nominees go and seems unlikely to be a trump stooge. Additionally, filibustering him will drive mainstream republicans closer to trump, when the democrat strategy should be to split the gop from the trump. They need to swallow their pride on Merrick garland and other obstructionist tactics from previous years. The voters had a chance to punish the GOP for their actions and chose not to.
Mr. T, sadly, it's difficult, and becoming more so, to make money as a writer.
I have a very good friend who is an SF author of some renown. His universal advice to prospective authors is "don't fucking bother". The chances of success are so remote and the rewards so sparse for the effort invested he reckons you'd be better off and much happier driving an uber and doing the lottery instead.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster the scotus nominee. He's fine as far as nominees go and seems unlikely to be a trump stooge. Additionally, filibustering him will drive mainstream republicans closer to trump, when the democrat strategy should be to split the gop from the trump. They need to swallow their pride on Merrick garland and other obstructionist tactics from previous years. The voters had a chance to punish the GOP for their actions and chose not to.
I agree with the recommendation and the strategy.
It does sting though that basically the republicans got exactly what they wanted from totally disrespecting the constitution.... Oh well.
What's done is done. All that matters now is what happens next. With two liberal justices in their 80s, the chances are that Trump will be making another nomination before 2020. That is the one that will have to be fought as if he gets its way it would swing the Court 6-3. To fight effectively, the Democrats will need public support. That will be far more likely if they are not seen to obstruct a fairly straight down the line conservative replacement for a conservative.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
Superb in the sense that he is talking total nonsense? Parliament has set taxes, created them and abolished them throughout our time as an EU member state. It has also created and repealed thousands of laws.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
If I understood that correctly, how come none of Trump's predecessors thought of it before?
Still remember that morning when Gove suicide-bombed Boris.
Mr. Herdson, I suspect many Frenchmen will switch to whoever is Le Pen's rival. If she makes it through to the second round, we'll find out.
I suspect many will. However, the worse her opponent is, the fewer will do so and all her opponents bar Macron (so far) have serious negatives against them. She does as well, of course, but hers are at least well known.
But when she's polled 40%+ against many opponents, it shows that she has an appeal that goes well beyond that which her father had.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
If I understood that correctly, how come none of Trump's predecessors thought of it before?
Presumably his predecessors were more concerned with allowing non-profits to campaign in favour of their proposals than preventing them campaigning against them.
Mr. 1000, I agree. As I've said before, if you were designing a presidential system that was unfriendly to fringe candidates, it'd be the French one. Le Pen to the second round is a real possibility, though not guaranteed, but I can't see her winning the presidency.
AV surely? ;-)
Being serious, the French system does make a piss-poor run-off choice more likely than AV does, increasing the risk of a fringe candidate. Had the French used AV in 2002, Jospin would probably have won. The risk this time is that a seriously flawed candidate is put forward to challenge Le Pen in the second round, having secured only 20-22% in the first, and that not enough people transfer across.
Especially if a load of dirt comes out about the non-Le Pen candidate between the first and second ballot.
I assume that the stuff about Fillon has been put out by 'the establishment' now to avoid that risk.
Yes, the French security services probably have a mole in the FSB.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
That could have a huge impact on American politics and I can see a number of court cases arising - overseen by the SCOTUS? Shame there's not a similar arrangement in the UK. A lot of so called charities exist purely to oppose the Tories.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
That could have a huge impact on American politics and I can see a number of court cases arising - overseen by the SCOTUS? Shame there's not a similar arrangement in the UK. A lot of so called charities exist purely to oppose the Tories.
Purely to oppose the Tories, eh? Which ones are they?
Superb in the sense that he is talking total nonsense? Parliament has set taxes, created them and abolished them throughout our time as an EU member state. It has also created and repealed thousands of laws.
If anything proves parliament is sovereign it is surely that parliament is telling the EU it is leaving... It is not asking permission to leave.
I can add "gender of Doctor Who" to the ever-lengthening list of hot topics that I haven't the slightest interest in developing a position on either way.
It is not the gender politics of Dr Who that is the problem, it is the poor writing of what should be a fairly simple tale of peril.
Christopher Ecclestone was my favourite of the revival, he had the right air of menace, as indeed should James Bond. JB is licensed for extrajudicial killings after all, a Red White and Blue death squad.
In the books, Bond is definitely an antihero, who is gradually being destroyed by the nature of his work. That doesn't come over in the films.
Arguably it does (somewhat) in some of the later films. Casino Royale gets close to it, after he falls for Eva Green.
Casino Royale is the best of the films for this reason, but prevented from being a true classic by the overlong conclusion in Venice.
Agreed 100%. Post of the day.
What a shame none of the other Daniel Craig movies were any good*.
* If you'd cut about 35% out of Spectre, like all the subplot about 'C', and tightened up the rest, then it could have been a reasonable movie. I think Skyfall the most insanely over-rated of Bonds. And Quantum of Confusion is just pointless.
I am absolutely with both on you on this. Agree 100%.
Also: don't forget Timothy Dalton. In my view, he got closest to Fleming's Bond.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
That could have a huge impact on American politics and I can see a number of court cases arising - overseen by the SCOTUS? Shame there's not a similar arrangement in the UK. A lot of so called charities exist purely to oppose the Tories.
Purely to oppose the Tories, eh? Which ones are they?
Any charity that tries to ameliorate the effects of Tory policies? Dirty, commie barstewards, shootin's too good for 'em, etc
Mr. Royale, Licence To Kill's rather good. The Living Daylights is hardly ever shown, possibly because it has the Mujaheddin[sp] in Afghanistan as the good guys.
On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.
I agree. Indeed, if the Democrats are foolish enough to take this to the brink, the casualty could be the 60-vote rule as reasonable public opinion which isn't partisanly bound to one side or the other, would come out against the unreasonableness of the Democrats. And if filibustering is made easier to overturn, that would make the GOP's legislative program (not to mention future SCOTUS nominees) a lot harder to oppose.
Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).
"the unreasonableness of the Democrats...." Well, that's a view. Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument. If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
I know it's late but I liked Keir Starmer's line yesterday:
When I was imploring people up and down the country to vote in the referendum and vote to remain, I told them their vote really mattered. That a decision was going to be made. I was not inviting them to express a view.
Superb in the sense that he is talking total nonsense? Parliament has set taxes, created them and abolished them throughout our time as an EU member state. It has also created and repealed thousands of laws.
If anything proves parliament is sovereign it is surely that parliament is telling the EU it is leaving... It is not asking permission to leave.
Not really. Parliament only gets to say adieu EU after jumping through the hurdles set by the EU in the Lisbon Treaty.
it annoys me when visitors dont understand the concept of "wait your turn".
That doesn't justify him telling the guy to 'get out of my country'.
No it doesnt. It is rude and unpleasant. Next time a white trump voter is asked to "check your privilege" im sure he could be forgiven for having a wry smile. The left/progressives etc pushed it too far. Other people worked out that to get your way you need to be ruthless and act entirely in the self interest of your kith and kin. It was only a matter of time before old whitey worked it out also.
I can add "gender of Doctor Who" to the ever-lengthening list of hot topics that I haven't the slightest interest in developing a position on either way.
It is not the gender politics of Dr Who that is the problem, it is the poor writing of what should be a fairly simple tale of peril.
Christopher Ecclestone was my favourite of the revival, he had the right air of menace, as indeed should James Bond. JB is licensed for extrajudicial killings after all, a Red White and Blue death squad.
In the books, Bond is definitely an antihero, who is gradually being destroyed by the nature of his work. That doesn't come over in the films.
Arguably it does (somewhat) in some of the later films. Casino Royale gets close to it, after he falls for Eva Green.
Casino Royale is the best of the films for this reason, but prevented from being a true classic by the overlong conclusion in Venice.
Agreed 100%. Post of the day.
What a shame none of the other Daniel Craig movies were any good*.
* If you'd cut about 35% out of Spectre, like all the subplot about 'C', and tightened up the rest, then it could have been a reasonable movie. I think Skyfall the most insanely over-rated of Bonds. And Quantum of Confusion is just pointless.
I am absolutely with both on you on this. Agree 100%.
Also: don't forget Timothy Dalton. In my view, he got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Agreed: Dalton was better than is widely remembered. And I liked the cello playing woman from the first movie.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster the scotus nominee. He's fine as far as nominees go and seems unlikely to be a trump stooge. Additionally, filibustering him will drive mainstream republicans closer to trump, when the democrat strategy should be to split the gop from the trump. They need to swallow their pride on Merrick garland and other obstructionist tactics from previous years. The voters had a chance to punish the GOP for their actions and chose not to.
I agree with the recommendation and the strategy.
It does sting though that basically the republicans got exactly what they wanted from totally disrespecting the constitution.... Oh well.
What's done is done. All that matters now is what happens next. With two liberal justices in their 80s, the chances are that Trump will be making another nomination before 2020. That is the one that will have to be fought as if he gets its way it would swing the Court 6-3. To fight effectively, the Democrats will need public support. That will be far more likely if they are not seen to obstruct a fairly straight down the line conservative replacement for a conservative.
There is no convention that the replacement of a supreme court justice should have similar views to the predecessor. In 1990 Clarence Thomas, arguably the court's staunchest conservative, succeeded Thurgood Marshall who was its most liberal member. The only 'convention' in that case was that one black justice replaced the other, but then Marshall was the first to serve on the court.
22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?
Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.
I don't see where the other 16 come from.
They can't. Once A50 is invoked, Britain will leave. The question is solely about the terms on which Britain will leave.
FWIW, I think parliament should vote on the deal and whatever the government's wishes, will ultimately vote on it. This tendency of May's to not go to parliament for support even when it's there is not a good one. I think it's a misreading to believe that such a vote would weaken her hand; on the contrary, it would strengthen it. "I'm afraid I can't accept that condition, Mr Verhofstat, I wouldn't be able to get it through parliament". etc.
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen. The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
That could have a huge impact on American politics and I can see a number of court cases arising - overseen by the SCOTUS? Shame there's not a similar arrangement in the UK. A lot of so called charities exist purely to oppose the Tories.
It's also potentially a very neat way for a president to exact payment (into his re-election fund) as a quid pro quo for policies, should you happen (hypothetically, of course) to have a grifter in the White House.
Macron made his own luck by making a clean break with the Parti Socialiste. A lot could still change but it's looking good for him.
There's something not quite right about Macron.
" Macron is married to Brigitte Trogneux, who is 24 years older than him and was his former teacher in La Providence high school, Amiens. "
I suspect there's an elephantine skeleton in the attic.
It's an unusual relationship, certainly, but not one that is likely to rebound on him, I suspect. They are still together after more than twenty years, having married in the meantime. Anything bad is likely to have been superseded by time. They seem to have been pretty discreet throughout, but if there ever was an abuse of age and position, it would by his older teacher wife and not him
Superb in the sense that he is talking total nonsense? Parliament has set taxes, created them and abolished them throughout our time as an EU member state. It has also created and repealed thousands of laws.
If anything proves parliament is sovereign it is surely that parliament is telling the EU it is leaving... It is not asking permission to leave.
Not really. Parliament only gets to say adieu EU after jumping through the hurdles set by the EU in the Lisbon Treaty.
If we accept those rules now. It appears (sensibly, so far) that we are prepared to do so.
But Parliament can say Adieu in whatever way it wants to as long as it accepts consequences.
it annoys me when visitors dont understand the concept of "wait your turn".
That doesn't justify him telling the guy to 'get out of my country'.
No it doesnt. It is rude and unpleasant. Next time a white trump voter is asked to "check your privilege" im sure he could be forgiven for having a wry smile. The left/progressives etc pushed it too far. Other people worked out that to get your way you need to be ruthless and act entirely in the self interest of your kith and kin. It was only a matter of time before old whitey worked it out also.
What the hell does that rant face to do with anything? I don't use the phrase 'check your privilege' but it is hardly the same as telling someone to get out of their country. It is also hardly the product of lefties and progressives. Xenophobia predates left wing ideology by quite a few years.
White America has been acting in its own self interest for much of its own history. It doing so now is a continuation of what it has always done. If minorities within America act within their own self interest they are only following the example of White America.
As it appears the majority of the British people want Soft Brexit rather than Hard Brexit surely if and when negotiations come to an end an agreement has not been found that is not acceptable to both the EU and our parliament, it is logical and democratic that another binary referendum should be put to the British people to decide our future.
Superb in the sense that he is talking total nonsense? Parliament has set taxes, created them and abolished them throughout our time as an EU member state. It has also created and repealed thousands of laws.
If anything proves parliament is sovereign it is surely that parliament is telling the EU it is leaving... It is not asking permission to leave.
Not really. Parliament only gets to say adieu EU after jumping through the hurdles set by the EU in the Lisbon Treaty.
Well parliament voted for the Lisbon Treaty. But perhaps more relevantly... John Redwood was previously arguing we didn't need article 50 to leave the EU!
Comments
It does sting though that basically the republicans got exactly what they wanted from totally disrespecting the constitution.... Oh well.
https://twitter.com/NoorAjaj/status/826507461540642816
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQeUZ9JHNG4
"A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.
Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.
More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen.
The move is consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the financial influence of private special interest groups on Washington.
But when she's polled 40%+ against many opponents, it shows that she has an appeal that goes well beyond that which her father had.
Also: don't forget Timothy Dalton. In my view, he got closest to Fleming's Bond.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/82942/rebel-tory-mps-could-defy
22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?
Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.
I don't see where the other 16 come from.
Dirty, commie barstewards, shootin's too good for 'em, etc
This is today's innocent abroad tribute post.
Well, that's a view.
Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
NEW THREAD
When I was imploring people up and down the country to vote in the referendum and vote to remain, I told them their vote really mattered. That a decision was going to be made. I was not inviting them to express a view.
FWIW, I think parliament should vote on the deal and whatever the government's wishes, will ultimately vote on it. This tendency of May's to not go to parliament for support even when it's there is not a good one. I think it's a misreading to believe that such a vote would weaken her hand; on the contrary, it would strengthen it. "I'm afraid I can't accept that condition, Mr Verhofstat, I wouldn't be able to get it through parliament". etc.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/01/25/2035218/russia-arrests-top-kaspersky-lab-security-researcher-on-charges-of-treason
But Parliament can say Adieu in whatever way it wants to as long as it accepts consequences.
White America has been acting in its own self interest for much of its own history. It doing so now is a continuation of what it has always done. If minorities within America act within their own self interest they are only following the example of White America.
Please don't ask me to find it.
But perhaps more relevantly... John Redwood was previously arguing we didn't need article 50 to leave the EU!