A pretty muted response to the dog whistle. That's his best shot remember.
I'm sorry? The Democrats best shot is that he enacts a series of unpopular policies that the nation unites in disgust against. It appears that is not happening (despite what you see on Twitter and the like). Trump is chugging along very nicely.
Diplomacy - France is out for the count, and Austria/Italy are teetering on the brink. Meanwhile, England (huzzah!), Germany, Russia and Turkey are all very similar in terms of strength.
Been checking the old games I've participated in, and every one has a different winner. Unless Russia gets a solo win, that won't happen this time. (I'd completely forgotten about the surprising Hurst Llama/Foxinsox triumph as Austria and Italy).
Mr. Rex, not to mention the victories at Poitiers and Crecy both occurred during Edward III's reign. Very impressive king he was, although he suffered great misfortune that the Black Death happened during his time as king and carried off a number of his children.
I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.
They also seem to have a sliding scale of value when it comes to those murdered by other 'pro lifers'.
Well exactly. I don't see pro lifers valuing their lives. A lot of them are also pro death penalty as well.
@PlatoSaid So prolifers don't believe that all lives are inherently valuable? In this country plenty of people get on just fine without a gun, for example. Many leave it to the courts to decide the appropriate punishment for those who attempt to harm their families.
It's a very common misconception - I had it myself at the start. How can pro-lifers be for the death penalty?!?!
Once I understood the principles behind it - it made total sense and I slapped myself for being so dense.
It's not about *life* per se - but about creating a society with appropriate values that makes it's good for families et al. Those who go OTT and score too many negative points lose their right to participate.
The unborn haven't done anything wrong. They don't lose their right to participate because it's inconvenient. If we killed people for being inconvenient - I can think of many categories, and it's why euthanasia is such a vexing issue.
It's not about life per se, but prolifers talk about a culture of life? Ironically a lot of pro lifers in America also tend to feel a certain type of way about birth control. Quite a few also tend to favour abstinence only sex education. I also notice many pro lifers aren't going down to social services to adopt or foster children. Undoubtedly without abortion more unwanted children will enter the world and society will have to deal with the social concequences of that.
The notion of deciding to kill someone based on them committing a crime would appear to contradict the notion that all lives are valuable. I also don't think that anyone thinks the unborn have done something wrong.
"European Union envoys agreed on Wednesday to extend emergency border controls inside the bloc's free-travel zone for another three months to mid-May, as immigration and security continued to dominate the political agenda.
The so-called Schengen zone of open borders collapsed as about 1.5 million refugees and migrants arrived in the bloc in 2015 and 2016, leaving the EU scrambling to ensure security and provide for the people.
Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Norway started imposing the emergency border controls from September, 2015, and got the go-ahead on Wednesday to keep them in place for longer.
Germany is all but certain to seek further extensions beyond that in the build-up to Sept. 24 national elections.
The influx of refugees and migrants has triggered a political crisis and bitter feuds between EU member states, which have not been able to agree on how to share the burden.
This has further strained the EU's troubled unity...
FPT Londonstani, the sad thing is that 15,000 is a respectable sale for a first novel. Had he been given a modest advance, then his literary career would have continued.
The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.
Simpler: the UK believes in fair play.
Fair play, moderation, do what works, don't make a fuss, puncture anyone who gets too pompous, don't take anything too seriously, mind your business, do-to-others-as-you-would-be-done-by, keep calm and carry on..
If we are to teach truly "British" values to anyone, those are really what ours are.
Immigration controls do discriminate against people on grounds of where they were born. But, that doesn't make them unjust.
Last thread The Elabe poll is obviously good for Macron but it had him up to 24% last month and has long given him the best rating of any pollster, Le Figaro at the weekend had him third. Obviously the relentless anti Fillon news at the moment has hit his ratings for the time being but still almost 3 months until polling day for him to shore up his position and he is helped by the fact his biggest support comes from pensioners and Macron's from the young. Le Pen is going to come first in round one it seems and it is between Macron and Fillon for the other runoff spot and turnout could be key
Having said that the Elab poll previously had best ratings for Macron, you fail to mention that the same pollster also had the best ratings for Fillon last month also!
I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.
I'm what you would probably class as "pro life".
From my perspective it's a question of how do you balance two conflicting rights: the rights of the unborn child vs. the rights of the mother (and the father). None of those parties have unfettered rights to act as they please - it's just a question of where you draw the line.
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
On police brutality, clearly a question of rights. Criminals have no right to break the law. The police have no general right to bash people over the head or kill them, although in certain circumstances they have more latitude than ordinary members of the public
Seriously strong performance from May today - she is mastering the dispatch box.
Corbyn had so many open goals he missed each one due to TM's mastery today.
Hmmm - I think it is probably more likely that he missed them because he is not very good.
Yes. It's impossible to judge May, or anyone else, against the current competition. I loathed the man, but I now concede that Tony Blair was probably the greatest opposition leader this country ever had. It would be interesting to see how May fared against someone of that quality.
Trump hasn't illegally invaded a sovereign country, killing a million people & causing Middle East hell. So it's all relative, Alastair. https://t.co/RMkxyMrMzp
A pretty muted response to the dog whistle. That's his best shot remember.
And it's heartening to find that the UK population - even though it overwhelmingly wants greater controls on immigration - is against enacting similar Trump-like policies in the UK by 49% to 28%.
Congratulations on missing the point. Today's polls show that May has broad support for her stance on the Trump visit with UK voters, and Trump has broad support for his travel ban policy with American voters. What British voters think of Trump's travel ban is neither here nor there.
"Barack Obama and George W Bush were both offered state visits by the Prime Minister of the day. Was Theresa May right to continue this diplomatic tradition?"
One of the most interesting parts of psychology was designing a questionnaire, which is trickier than it sounds. As well as reverse questions (asking the exact same sentiment but from the other perspective), trying to ask questions that measured just one thing without adding conditions, leading sentiment or having multiple ideas present could be surprisingly difficult.
Of course it's a leading question. That's my point. Perhaps I was too subtle for you (and others). The point is that the single YouGov question was also leading, because it started from the hole that May has got herself into i.e. [Given that] "Donald Trump has been invited to make an official State Visit to Britain later this year...." [and all the consequences of now changing tack]. So if anyone infers from the YouGov responses that they indicate that the UK public somehow welcomes the honour being accorded to Trump, they should think again.
Donald J Trump Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
The Americans do indeed have a very different philosophical mindset and history than us Europeans.
Seriously strong performance from May today - she is mastering the dispatch box.
Corbyn had so many open goals he missed each one due to TM's mastery today.
Hmmm - I think it is probably more likely that he missed them because he is not very good.
Yes. It's impossible to judge May, or anyone else, against the current competition. I loathed the man, but I now concede that Tony Blair was probably the greatest opposition leader this country ever had. It would be interesting to see how May fared against someone of that quality.
She can only take on that which is put in front of her and right now Corbyn is labour's choice, more fool them
Last thread The Elabe poll is obviously good for Macron but it had him up to 24% last month and has long given him the best rating of any pollster, Le Figaro at the weekend had him third. Obviously the relentless anti Fillon news at the moment has hit his ratings for the time being but still almost 3 months until polling day for him to shore up his position and he is helped by the fact his biggest support comes from pensioners and Macron's from the young. Le Pen is going to come first in round one it seems and it is between Macron and Fillon for the other runoff spot and turnout could be key
Having said that the Elab poll previously had best ratings for Macron, you fail to mention that the same pollster also had the best ratings for Fillon last month also!
Clearly some of that Fillon support has gone to Le Pen which is why she has gone from third last month to a clear lead this month
Diplomacy - France is out for the count, and Austria/Italy are teetering on the brink. Meanwhile, England (huzzah!), Germany, Russia and Turkey are all very similar in terms of strength.
Seriously strong performance from May today - she is mastering the dispatch box.
Corbyn had so many open goals he missed each one due to TM's mastery today.
Hmmm - I think it is probably more likely that he missed them because he is not very good.
Yes. It's impossible to judge May, or anyone else, against the current competition. I loathed the man, but I now concede that Tony Blair was probably the greatest opposition leader this country ever had. It would be interesting to see how May fared against someone of that quality.
She can only take on that which is put in front of her and right now Corbyn is labour's choice, more fool them
Yes, but it's all a bit England Cricket of the 1990s versus Zimbabwe at the moment.
Seriously strong performance from May today - she is mastering the dispatch box.
Corbyn had so many open goals he missed each one due to TM's mastery today.
Hmmm - I think it is probably more likely that he missed them because he is not very good.
That was her best outing for a while and the humilation of Tim Farron from all sides of the house was the icing on the cake
Farron is evidence of what happens when you have a vacancy and, after asking the whole of Great Britain, end up with only seven possible candidates to replace the guy giving up the job. No ethnics. No disabled. And no women.
The blanket ban is what is discriminatory: because you were born in Syria you cannot enter the US; full stop.
Indeed. So it's discrimination (at the moment for 90 days) against Syrians, and against nationals of 6 other countries. It may well be unjust, counter-productive, simplistic, and perhaps illegal, and it was certainly completely ham-fisted in its introduction. But it is not discrimination against Muslims. Nor is it particularly unusual; lots of of countries have blanket bans against Israelis, and almost all countries (including the UK) make it extremely difficult for nationals of particular countries to get visas.
What gets me about this is that the very people who are most indignant against Trump on the grounds that he ignores evidence, and is crude and simplistic, are doing exactly the same thing is this hyperbole-laden criticism of him. Is it asking too much of people that they should criticise what he has done, not what he hasn't done?
The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.
Simpler: the UK believes in fair play.
Fair play, moderation, do what works, don't make a fuss, puncture anyone who gets too pompous, don't take anything too seriously, mind your business, do-to-others-as-you-would-be-done-by, keep calm and carry on..
If we are to teach truly "British" values to anyone, those are really what ours are.
Immigration controls do discriminate against people on grounds of where they were born. But, that doesn't make them unjust.
My point was that Britons can, will and do support immigration controls that discriminate, provided they are justified and that justification is articulated with the right tone.
"European Union envoys agreed on Wednesday to extend emergency border controls inside the bloc's free-travel zone for another three months to mid-May, as immigration and security continued to dominate the political agenda.
The so-called Schengen zone of open borders collapsed as about 1.5 million refugees and migrants arrived in the bloc in 2015 and 2016, leaving the EU scrambling to ensure security and provide for the people.
Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Norway started imposing the emergency border controls from September, 2015, and got the go-ahead on Wednesday to keep them in place for longer.
Germany is all but certain to seek further extensions beyond that in the build-up to Sept. 24 national elections.
The influx of refugees and migrants has triggered a political crisis and bitter feuds between EU member states, which have not been able to agree on how to share the burden.
This has further strained the EU's troubled unity...
A 90 day emergency imposition of extra border controls?
Donald J Trump Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!
The biggest lesson politicians should take from Trump is that communicating directly in blunt terms what it is you intend to do is not a gaffe.
Last thread The Elabe poll is obviously good for Macron but it had him up to 24% last month and has long given him the best rating of any pollster, Le Figaro at the weekend had him third. Obviously the relentless anti Fillon news at the moment has hit his ratings for the time being but still almost 3 months until polling day for him to shore up his position and he is helped by the fact his biggest support comes from pensioners and Macron's from the young. Le Pen is going to come first in round one it seems and it is between Macron and Fillon for the other runoff spot and turnout could be key
Having said that the Elab poll previously had best ratings for Macron, you fail to mention that the same pollster also had the best ratings for Fillon last month also!
Clearly some of that Fillon support has gone to Le Pen which is why she has gone from third last month to a clear lead this month
Certainly better for Fillon that his lost support goes to Le Pen rather than Macron, I will agree. Le Pen pretty much nailed on to win the first round, the margin, within reason, is irrelevant to either of her two main opponents.
The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.
When deciding whether visas are needed for entry at all, and on granting visas, the UK discriminates heavily against people from Muslim countries. Is that wrong?
The blanket ban is what is discriminatory: because you were born in Syria you cannot enter the US; full stop.
Syrians can enter the US after vetting. Since the country's in the middle of a brutal war in which terrorists, jihadists and fighters of all descriptions are roaming the country, that seems quite sensible.
Last thread The Elabe poll is obviously good for Macron but it had him up to 24% last month and has long given him the best rating of any pollster, Le Figaro at the weekend had him third. Obviously the relentless anti Fillon news at the moment has hit his ratings for the time being but still almost 3 months until polling day for him to shore up his position and he is helped by the fact his biggest support comes from pensioners and Macron's from the young. Le Pen is going to come first in round one it seems and it is between Macron and Fillon for the other runoff spot and turnout could be key
Having said that the Elab poll previously had best ratings for Macron, you fail to mention that the same pollster also had the best ratings for Fillon last month also!
Clearly some of that Fillon support has gone to Le Pen which is why she has gone from third last month to a clear lead this month
Certainly better for Fillon that his lost support goes to Le Pen rather than Macron, I will agree. Le Pen pretty much nailed on to win the first round, the margin, within reason, is irrelevant to either of her two main opponents.
True but if Fillon can squeeze a little of that Le Pen support back his way and get his vote out he can still make the runoff. Will be an interesting few months
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
The Americans do indeed have a very different philosophical mindset and history than us Europeans.
No: the Anglo-Saxons have a common philosophy but the British and the Americans have developed it in different practical ways.
Brits don't trust their government, and so the police (as a potential instrument of oppression) are not armed and the army is not allowed on the streets
Americans don't trust their government, and so the citizens are allowed to bear arms to defend themselves against an oppressive government
Europeans are much more comfortable with the state as an instrument of power imposing its wishes on citizens
I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.
I'm what you would probably class as "pro life".
From my perspective it's a question of how do you balance two conflicting rights: the rights of the unborn child vs. the rights of the mother (and the father). None of those parties have unfettered rights to act as they please - it's just a question of where you draw the line.
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
On police brutality, clearly a question of rights. Criminals have no right to break the law. The police have no general right to bash people over the head or kill them, although in certain circumstances they have more latitude than ordinary members of the public
On the unborn child's rights - I guess it depends on whether you equate say, a growing life 1 month into the pregnancy with a living human being. I personally don't. My own position is the mother is the one who has to carry the child and therefore within legal term limits she should be able to make the decision.
On police brutality: I don't believe that anyone believes criminals have the right to break the law. I agree on the police.
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
The Americans do indeed have a very different philosophical mindset and history than us Europeans.
Us Brits, perhaps. 10 of the top 20 gun-owning countries are European.
Mr. Divvie, bloody silly Scientology gets considered a religion and Jediism doesn't.
From what I've read, Scientology is psychotherapy with added aliens.
You missed off the blackmail.
I can't help feeling that any religion that requires you to fess up to all your foibles is ripe for extortion. That Scientology goes nitpicking into your psyche makes anyone a target for manipulation.
I've an innate dislike/mistrust of shrinks myself and their authority power - throw religion in as well?! Yikes.
Just watched John Healey talk some sense today; basically the state visit furore is just frippery. Trumps politics are worrying but ...
Jezza, of course, has just come out saying the visit MUST be stopped.
As was pointed out, the Chinese Premier's visits weren't met with anything like the angst from the Left wing. A man who is unelected and not too fussed about human rights. I suppose Mao was a far-sighted man too for some of the comrades.
It must be difficult to be a Labour MP with more than two brain cells to rub together.
He says the UK should be collaborating with its EU allies.
Where has the coordinated EU response to the Trump travel ban been, he asks.
He says he is glad Britons have an exemption. So does Canada, New Zealand and Australia. But he says EU countries are not covered. The UK should be standing in solidarity with them.
Why? Does the EU and the rest of the member states not have their own diplomats to lobby for them? Even if we were to successfully lobby for them, I doubt it'd do us much good.
I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.
I'm what you would probably class as "pro life".
From my perspective it's a question of how do you balance two conflicting rights: the rights of the unborn child vs. the rights of the mother (and the father). None of those parties have unfettered rights to act as they please - it's just a question of where you draw the line.
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
On police brutality, clearly a question of rights. Criminals have no right to break the law. The police have no general right to bash people over the head or kill them, although in certain circumstances they have more latitude than ordinary members of the public
On the unborn child's rights - I guess it depends on whether you equate say, a growing life 1 month into the pregnancy with a living human being. I personally don't. My own position is the mother is the one who has to carry the child and therefore within legal term limits she should be able to make the decision.
On police brutality: I don't believe that anyone believes criminals have the right to break the law. I agree on the police.
There are a couple of cases at the moment (which are daft) arguing that fathers should have rights. Personally I think there should be some recognition of their role, but no idea how to define that!
On the unborn child's rights, I would tend to look at viability (on a medical basis) as being the point of differentiation. Once a child can survive outside the womb (even if as a result of extensive medical intervention) then it should have rights; prior to that it is dependent on the mother who's rights should take priority. I believe (but am no expert) that this is c. 19-20 weeks at the moment (vs 24 weeks for abortion). Politicians should set the principle and then have an independent committee review the cut off point, say every 10 years.
Re: the criminals having the right to break the law - all too often those who complain about "police brutality" don't give any thought to whether their actions *might* have been justified in the specific circumstances
"European Union envoys agreed on Wednesday to extend emergency border controls inside the bloc's free-travel zone for another three months to mid-May, as immigration and security continued to dominate the political agenda.
The so-called Schengen zone of open borders collapsed as about 1.5 million refugees and migrants arrived in the bloc in 2015 and 2016, leaving the EU scrambling to ensure security and provide for the people.
Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Norway started imposing the emergency border controls from September, 2015, and got the go-ahead on Wednesday to keep them in place for longer.
Germany is all but certain to seek further extensions beyond that in the build-up to Sept. 24 national elections.
The influx of refugees and migrants has triggered a political crisis and bitter feuds between EU member states, which have not been able to agree on how to share the burden.
This has further strained the EU's troubled unity...
A 90 day emergency imposition of extra border controls?
@GuardianHeather: Osborne: "the negotiations will be a trade off, as all divorces are, between access and money...it's going to be, I suspect, rather bitter".
He says the UK should be collaborating with its EU allies.
Where has the coordinated EU response to the Trump travel ban been, he asks.
He says he is glad Britons have an exemption. So does Canada, New Zealand and Australia. But he says EU countries are not covered. The UK should be standing in solidarity with them.
Why? Does the EU and the rest of the member states not have their own diplomats to lobby for them? Even if we were to successfully lobby for them, I doubt it'd do us much good.
Our governments responsibility is towards its own nationals, not anyone else's.
On the unborn child's rights - I guess it depends on whether you equate say, a growing life 1 month into the pregnancy with a living human being. ...
Precisely. That is the entire point. It's entirely about cut-off dates. For some reason, many people (including I suspect you) think that those who think the cut-off date should be early are Bad People, or (even worse!) misogynists. But it's entirely about choosing a point on a scale from 0 to 9 months. That is all.
This is why the argument is so sterile. Some people go into palpitations of indignation when those on the American religious right say they are against abortion even when the conception was caused by rape. Of course they are; they are being entirely reasonable and consistent, given their starting point that the unborn child has the same moral status as a new-born baby. Since they think that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide, why on earth would the unfortunate circumstances of the conception be relevant?
The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.
When deciding whether visas are needed for entry at all, and on granting visas, the UK discriminates heavily against people from Muslim countries. Is that wrong?
The blanket ban is what is discriminatory: because you were born in Syria you cannot enter the US; full stop.
Syrians can enter the US after vetting. Since the country's in the middle of a brutal war in which terrorists, jihadists and fighters of all descriptions are roaming the country, that seems quite sensible.
The principle of denying entry to people from violent dysfunctional societies is reasonable enough, even if the implementation has been incompetent.
I like the fact that Trump gives straight(ish) answers to questions.
There is a good reason why leaders tend not to give straight answers all the time. Trump will probably demonstrate it in the months and years to come.
And, of course, Trump's answers, while not hedging, are not necessarily true.
I'm expecting Trump to be frank when he or his team eff up. He did it in plain terms when caught over pussygate. If someone let's him down, they'll be gone quickly too.
The media can't use social shaming on him. That's 90% of their power.
Behind 3 doors there is a donald trump, a bad al and alec salmond....you pick a door and the host another open door and shows an alec salmond, so you switch or stick.
I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.
They also seem to have a sliding scale of value when it comes to those murdered by other 'pro lifers'.
snip
@PlatoSaid So prolifers don't believe that all lives are inherently valuable? In this country plenty of people get on just fine without a gun, for example. Many leave it to the courts to decide the appropriate punishment for those who attempt to harm their families.
It's a very common misconception - I had it myself at the start. How can pro-lifers be for the death penalty?!?!
Once I understood the principles behind it - it made total sense and I slapped myself for being so dense.
It's not about *life* per se - but about creating a society with appropriate values that makes it's good for families et al. Those who go OTT and score too many negative points lose their right to participate.
The unborn haven't done anything wrong. They don't lose their right to participate because it's inconvenient. If we killed people for being inconvenient - I can think of many categories, and it's why euthanasia is such a vexing issue.
It's not about life per se, but prolifers talk about a culture of life? Ironically a lot of pro lifers in America also tend to feel a certain type of way about birth control. Quite a few also tend to favour abstinence only sex education. I also notice many pro lifers aren't going down to social services to adopt or foster children. Undoubtedly without abortion more unwanted children will enter the world and society will have to deal with the social concequences of that.
The notion of deciding to kill someone based on them committing a crime would appear to contradict the notion that all lives are valuable. I also don't think that anyone thinks the unborn have done something wrong.
I think you're missing the Catholic part here that isn't pro abortion from a religious perspective. Faith is a much bigger factor in the USA than here re sex - along with older age sexual relationship laws. The same goes for alcohol where 21 is quite common.
It's a different place to here in the UK - and makes a lot more sense when UK centric views are removed when trying to understand it. Outside the metro areas - it's a much more socially conservative country.
I've no idea where you're getting the idea that pro-lifers don't adopt kids - can you expand here?
Comments
@JGForsyth: Worth noting that Der Spiegel has reported that Angela Merkel's aides told Trump team that she would come to DC as soon as they wanted
Been checking the old games I've participated in, and every one has a different winner. Unless Russia gets a solo win, that won't happen this time. (I'd completely forgotten about the surprising Hurst Llama/Foxinsox triumph as Austria and Italy).
Mind you, it seems it was the Scientologists who were beaten to it, so that's good news in anyone's book.
And, of course, Trump's answers, while not hedging, are not necessarily true.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/review-great-and-terrible-king-edward-i.html
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/review-greatest-traitor-life-of-sir.html
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/review-perfect-king-life-of-edward-iii.html
Hmm. Seems 2015 was a medieval year.
But IIRC Edward III had both David II and John II locked up at the same time. Which was some achievement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_(Scientology)
Bloody bastarding Brexiteers.
Currently on Vol 3 of Sumption's magnum opus. Superb stuff. I wish he'd take a sabbatical from the Supreme Court and hurry up and finish the job.
The notion of deciding to kill someone based on them committing a crime would appear to contradict the notion that all lives are valuable. I also don't think that anyone thinks the unborn have done something wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/31/how-nigel-farages-taunts-prompted-hasty-offer-of-trump-state-visit
"European Union envoys agreed on Wednesday to extend emergency border controls inside the bloc's free-travel zone for another three months to mid-May, as immigration and security continued to dominate the political agenda.
The so-called Schengen zone of open borders collapsed as about 1.5 million refugees and migrants arrived in the bloc in 2015 and 2016, leaving the EU scrambling to ensure security and provide for the people.
Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Norway started imposing the emergency border controls from September, 2015, and got the go-ahead on Wednesday to keep them in place for longer.
Germany is all but certain to seek further extensions beyond that in the build-up to Sept. 24 national elections.
The influx of refugees and migrants has triggered a political crisis and bitter feuds between EU member states, which have not been able to agree on how to share the burden.
This has further strained the EU's troubled unity...
OTOH, £200,000 is a great consolation prize.
https://amazon.co.uk/Trial-Battle-Hundred-Years-Vol/dp/0571200958/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485953147&sr=1-1&keywords=the+hundred+years+war
Edit: 4 volumes to date, and I think he's got as far as Agincourt.
Having said that the Elab poll previously had best ratings for Macron, you fail to mention that the same pollster also had the best ratings for Fillon last month also!
From my perspective it's a question of how do you balance two conflicting rights: the rights of the unborn child vs. the rights of the mother (and the father). None of those parties have unfettered rights to act as they please - it's just a question of where you draw the line.
On gun control: that reflects a different philosophical mindset and history. Many people who oppose gun control in the US would oppose arming the police in the UK. I'm not sure it's productive for Brits to try and understand the American approach!
On police brutality, clearly a question of rights. Criminals have no right to break the law. The police have no general right to bash people over the head or kill them, although in certain circumstances they have more latitude than ordinary members of the public
LibDems looking like Student Grant.
Here's a flavour
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/826758256487972865
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/826760207703404544
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/826765155753148417
Trump hasn't illegally invaded a sovereign country, killing a million people & causing Middle East hell. So it's all relative, Alastair. https://t.co/RMkxyMrMzp
Donald J Trump
Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!
Anyway, time to attempt exercise and see if the shoulder will behave itself today.
Tragic thing is I'm only getting paid for one of the jobs, the rest is all pro bono and ego.
You end up with a knob.
What gets me about this is that the very people who are most indignant against Trump on the grounds that he ignores evidence, and is crude and simplistic, are doing exactly the same thing is this hyperbole-laden criticism of him. Is it asking too much of people that they should criticise what he has done, not what he hasn't done?
That's outrageous.
Full transcript included
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alexis-thomasi/2017/01/31/msnbc-hosts-take-turns-interrogating-sean-spicer
Brits don't trust their government, and so the police (as a potential instrument of oppression) are not armed and the army is not allowed on the streets
Americans don't trust their government, and so the citizens are allowed to bear arms to defend themselves against an oppressive government
Europeans are much more comfortable with the state as an instrument of power imposing its wishes on citizens
On the unborn child's rights - I guess it depends on whether you equate say, a growing life 1 month into the pregnancy with a living human being. I personally don't. My own position is the mother is the one who has to carry the child and therefore within legal term limits she should be able to make the decision.
On police brutality: I don't believe that anyone believes criminals have the right to break the law. I agree on the police.
I've an innate dislike/mistrust of shrinks myself and their authority power - throw religion in as well?! Yikes.
Both sides have prioritised a clean break over economic desires.
Jezza, of course, has just come out saying the visit MUST be stopped.
As was pointed out, the Chinese Premier's visits weren't met with anything like the angst from the Left wing. A man who is unelected and not too fussed about human rights. I suppose Mao was a far-sighted man too for some of the comrades.
It must be difficult to be a Labour MP with more than two brain cells to rub together.
He says the UK should be collaborating with its EU allies.
Where has the coordinated EU response to the Trump travel ban been, he asks.
He says he is glad Britons have an exemption. So does Canada, New Zealand and Australia. But he says EU countries are not covered. The UK should be standing in solidarity with them.
Why? Does the EU and the rest of the member states not have their own diplomats to lobby for them? Even if we were to successfully lobby for them, I doubt it'd do us much good.
On the unborn child's rights, I would tend to look at viability (on a medical basis) as being the point of differentiation. Once a child can survive outside the womb (even if as a result of extensive medical intervention) then it should have rights; prior to that it is dependent on the mother who's rights should take priority. I believe (but am no expert) that this is c. 19-20 weeks at the moment (vs 24 weeks for abortion). Politicians should set the principle and then have an independent committee review the cut off point, say every 10 years.
Re: the criminals having the right to break the law - all too often those who complain about "police brutality" don't give any thought to whether their actions *might* have been justified in the specific circumstances
https://mobile.twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/826760540647088129
This is why the argument is so sterile. Some people go into palpitations of indignation when those on the American religious right say they are against abortion even when the conception was caused by rape. Of course they are; they are being entirely reasonable and consistent, given their starting point that the unborn child has the same moral status as a new-born baby. Since they think that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide, why on earth would the unfortunate circumstances of the conception be relevant?
Take back control to the UK Parliament...
The media can't use social shaming on him. That's 90% of their power.
It's a different place to here in the UK - and makes a lot more sense when UK centric views are removed when trying to understand it. Outside the metro areas - it's a much more socially conservative country.
I've no idea where you're getting the idea that pro-lifers don't adopt kids - can you expand here?