Salmond goes on about trump like he never met the guy.
It's interesting that in the Trump letters, the Donald implicitly threatens that the independence dream will be 'gone with the wind' if he doesn't get what he wants.
If the EU can play the Sindy card to put Westminster in a weak position, so can Trump, and perhaps even more painfully.
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 concequen
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?
In U.S. terms the UK is basically the equivalent of New Jersey or New York state, not as liberal as San Francisco or as leftwing as Massachusetts but more moderate and less conservative than the majority of the country
"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?
"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?
That's outrageous.
It's appalling
*makes placard*
If you wish to protest, you may need one of these....
Salmond goes on about trump like he never met the guy.
It's interesting that in the Trump letters, the Donald implicitly threatens that the independence dream will be 'gone with the wind' if he doesn't get what he wants.
If the EU can play the Sindy card to put Westminster in a weak position, so can Trump, and perhaps even more painfully.
Trump is far closer to Brexit UK in ideology than the leftwing SNP and there is a difference between a Security Council and G20 power and a small northern European nation
"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 concequen
In U.S. terms the UK is basically the equivalent of New Jersey or New York state, not as liberal as San Francisco or as leftwing as Massachusetts but more moderate and less conservative than the majority of the country
Trump is far closer to Brexit UK in ideology than the leftwing SNP and there is a difference between a Security Council and G20 power and a small northern European nation
Would you put money on there still being a Security Council in 4 years' time?
"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?
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.
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 concequen
In U.S. terms the UK is basically the equivalent of New Jersey or New York state, not as liberal as San Francisco or as leftwing as Massachusetts but more moderate and less conservative than the majority of the country
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
@Charles On fathers rights: well exactly. It's hard to create a situation where fathers rights mean that the mothers rights aren't overruled. I'm of the position that since the mother is carrying the child, her rights take precedent. She is also likely to be the primary care giver as well, in the event of the child being born and not being placed in social service care.
On police brutality. There is a long history of police brutality towards certain groups in America, most notably when those groups were not breaking the law but simply fighting for their civil rights. So I think I'm understanding those who ''complain about police brutality'' on this one.
Trump is far closer to Brexit UK in ideology than the leftwing SNP and there is a difference between a Security Council and G20 power and a small northern European nation
Would you put money on there still being a Security Council in 4 years' time?
I would not be certain of anything at the moment but Security Council or not post Brexit UK would still be more important to Trump than an independent Scotland
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
Having watched hundreds of hours of Jeremy Kyle, and seen many men excluded from decisions about their kids - I'm much more sympathetic to their rights as dads. There'd be no child without them and I think this aspect has been totally lost from the debate.
Trump is far closer to Brexit UK in ideology than the leftwing SNP and there is a difference between a Security Council and G20 power and a small northern European nation
Would you put money on there still being a Security Council in 4 years' time?
I would not be certain of anything at the moment but Security Council or not post Brexit UK would still be more important to Trump than an independent Scotland
You're missing the point which is that Trump knows how to identify pressure points and is only too willing to exploit them. He has the UK just where he wants us, for now...
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.
You think when things go wrong... As they do for all presidents to some degree...
Donald Trump, That's Donald Trump,
is going to put up his hand and say... "I/we screwed up. I'm sorry." instead of blaming democrats, Washington, ,the media, nasty judges, immigrants, women etc... ?
What should have been an easy score for a decent LoTo turned into a mauling for the increasingly hapless Jeremy Corbyn. It seems to me he genuinely wants to turn the USA - our greatest ally - into an enemy. He is utterly deranged. May's line will become Corbyn's political epitaph 'He leads protest, I lead the country'. Deadly effective.
Trump is far closer to Brexit UK in ideology than the leftwing SNP and there is a difference between a Security Council and G20 power and a small northern European nation
Would you put money on there still being a Security Council in 4 years' time?
I would not be certain of anything at the moment but Security Council or not post Brexit UK would still be more important to Trump than an independent Scotland
You're missing the point which is that Trump knows how to identify pressure points and is only too willing to exploit them. He has the UK just where he wants us, for now...
Apart from Australia and Israel the UK is the only nation the US can probably really rely on when the chips are down and it will not want to threaten that, the UK has some cards to play too
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
@Charles On fathers rights: well exactly. It's hard to create a situation where fathers rights mean that the mothers rights aren't overruled. I'm of the position that since the mother is carrying the child, her rights take precedent. She is also likely to be the primary care giver as well, in the event of the child being born and not being placed in social service care.
On police brutality. There is a long history of police brutality towards certain groups in America, most notably when those groups were not breaking the law but simply fighting for their civil rights. So I think I'm understanding those who ''complain about police brutality'' on this one.
On term limits it sounds like we broadly agree on viability being an appropriate age
On father's rights - difficult. One route might be around the mother playing the role of a surrogate (and being compensated accordingly for it) but not easy.
On police brutality - disagree. If a known gang member, for instance, who the police believe to have a gun, is shot and killed I have little sympathy. If a fat man running away is shot in the back that strikes me as an inappropriate use of force (not sure it is "brutality" though). Both of these apply regardless of colour which should make absolutely zero difference in how people judge the police officer's actions
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.
You think when things go wrong... As they do for all presidents to some degree...
Donald Trump, That's Donald Trump,
is going to put up his hand and say... "I/we screwed up. I'm sorry." instead of blaming democrats, Washington, ,the media, nasty judges, immigrants, women etc... ?
In fairness, Plato's suggesting that Trump will take it out on his underlings, not offer any contrition himself.
"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?
That's outrageous.
It's appalling
*makes placard*
You do realise that border controls != banning certain nationalities from your country?
Catholics aren't pro life from a religious perspective? I can't say I agree. I agree that faith is more important for Americans - but that doesn't mean you impose your morality on others. Polling back in 2012 regarding abortion here, showed that even British Catholics felt that abortion should be legal.
Many pro lifers don't adopt and nor do they advocate adopting unwanted kids alongside their pro life status. Of many of the GOPers who are pro life John McCain is amongst the few who have adopted children.
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
On the defensive? Defensive of whom? I was describing other people's views, not mine.
Not with much success, it has to be said.
Still I'm pleased to hear that you don't think those who oppose abortion under any circumstances are misogynistic.
Incidentally, I've never really understood why the date at which a premature baby can survive outside the womb is relevant to the question, especially when that makes the cut-off date dependent on technological advances in incubator design and medical gizmos. For that matter, a new-born baby can't survive unaided. It's always seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant point, and it's certainly irrelevant for those whose opposition to abortion is based on a religious principle.
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.
You think when things go wrong... As they do for all presidents to some degree...
Donald Trump, That's Donald Trump,
is going to put up his hand and say... "I/we screwed up. I'm sorry." instead of blaming democrats, Washington, ,the media, nasty judges, immigrants, women etc... ?
If his team effs up - yes I do. If he's a legitimate reason to blame misrepresentation on others - he will.
"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?
That's outrageous.
It's appalling
*makes placard*
You do realise that border controls != banning certain nationalities from your country?
Trump is far closer to Brexit UK in ideology than the leftwing SNP and there is a difference between a Security Council and G20 power and a small northern European nation
Would you put money on there still being a Security Council in 4 years' time?
I would not be certain of anything at the moment but Security Council or not post Brexit UK would still be more important to Trump than an independent Scotland
You're missing the point which is that Trump knows how to identify pressure points and is only too willing to exploit them. He has the UK just where he wants us, for now...
His nose for this stuff is his talent - he's done it dozens of times, small stuff like nicknaming opponents being the obvious early tells.
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
@Charles On fathers rights: well exactly. It's hard to create a situation where fathers rights mean that the mothers rights aren't overruled. I'm of the position that since the mother is carrying the child, her rights take precedent. She is also likely to be the primary care giver as well, in the event of the child being born and not being placed in social service care.
On police brutality. There is a long history of police brutality towards certain groups in America, most notably when those groups were not breaking the law but simply fighting for their civil rights. So I think I'm understanding those who ''complain about police brutality'' on this one.
On term limits it sounds like we broadly agree on viability being an appropriate age
On father's rights - difficult. One route might be around the mother playing the role of a surrogate (and being compensated accordingly for it) but not easy.
On police brutality - disagree. If a known gang member, for instance, who the police believe to have a gun, is shot and killed I have little sympathy. If a fat man running away is shot in the back that strikes me as an inappropriate use of force (not sure it is "brutality" though). Both of these apply regardless of colour which should make absolutely zero difference in how people judge the police officer's actions
Colour and history will, whether any of us like it or not, shape how many minorities in America view the police's use of force. This is primarily because colour has been a dividing line throughout much of American history, and for many miniorities it continues to effect their lives. And on the gang member example, the crucial word is 'believe'. Sometimes what law enforcement believe and what is actually the case is two different things. But in any case, since being in a possession of a gun is a legal right in America I'm not too sure whether I'm on board with gun possession in itself giving officers the right to use force.
Catholics aren't pro life from a religious perspective? I can't say I agree. I agree that faith is more important for Americans - but that doesn't mean you impose your morality on others. Polling back in 2012 regarding abortion here, showed that even British Catholics felt that abortion should be legal.
Many pro lifers don't adopt and nor do they advocate adopting unwanted kids alongside their pro life status. Of many of the GOPers who are pro life John McCain is amongst the few who have adopted children.
Where is your evidence for any of this from neutral sources? I'll be happy to learn more.
"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?
That's outrageous.
It's appalling
*makes placard*
You do realise that border controls != banning certain nationalities from your country?
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 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
Having watched hundreds of hours of Jeremy Kyle, and seen many men excluded from decisions about their kids - I'm much more sympathetic to their rights as dads. There'd be no child without them and I think this aspect has been totally lost from the debate.
HAVING WATCHED HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF JEREMY KYLE.....
Thank you grasshopper.....the mist has started to clear
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
On the defensive? Defensive of whom? I was describing other people's views, not mine.
Not with much success, it has to be said.
Still I'm pleased to hear that you don't think those who oppose abortion under any circumstances are misogynistic.
Incidentally, I've never really understood why the date at which a premature baby can survive outside the womb is relevant to the question, especially when that makes the cut-off date dependent on technological advances in incubator design and medical gizmos. For that matter, a new-born baby can't survive unaided. It's always seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant point, and it's certainly irrelevant for those whose opposition to abortion is based on a religious principle.
I said I didn't think that those who wanted earlier term limits were misogynists. There's a difference between that and those who oppose abortion under any circumstances.
You were being a bit defensive in assuming my views on those advocating earlier term dates.
Well I guess it's relevant in terms of the debate of do you see the unborn child as having equal rights to the mother - which is a key part of the abortion debate.
Those who are religious can think what they like on abortion - the point is they shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. If they don't like abortion, they don't have to have one. But not everyone is religious, or wants to live their life by all religious moral guidelines.
I really struggle to understand this idea that MPs have a 'duty' to vote for A50.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
Those who are religious can think what they like on abortion - the point is they shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. If they don't like abortion, they don't have to have one. But not everyone is religious, or wants to live their life by all religious moral guidelines.
@SpenceLivermore: Voting for Article 50 is worse than giving Theresa May a blank cheque - it's giving her a cheque made out to Donald Trump
/ducks
That's Baron Livermore, who got a peerage for helping lose the general election for Ed Miliband.......while Lynton Crosby got a Knighthood for helping win the election for David Cameron.
I really struggle to understand this idea that MPs have a 'duty' to vote for A50.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
The time to have that debate was before calling the referendum. Given that parliament - with support from Labour and IIRC even the LibDems - passed the question to the voting public to decide, they have a duty to implement it.
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
Incidentally, I've never really understood why the date at which a premature baby can survive outside the womb is relevant to the question, especially when that makes the cut-off date dependent on technological advances in incubator design and medical gizmos. For that matter, a new-born baby can't survive unaided. It's always seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant point, and it's certainly irrelevant for those whose opposition to abortion is based on a religious principle.
It's an attempt to find a reasonable proxy answer for the question "when does life begin". In essence, it revolves around the suggestion that when a foetus is capable of independent existence (no, not self sufficiency), then it exists as living being in its own right.
It's not completely satisfactory, and as you say is muddied by the advance of medical technology. But by the same token, try telling grieving parents that their late term miscarriage wasn't a real life.
"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?
That's outrageous.
It's appalling
*makes placard*
You do realise that border controls != banning certain nationalities from your country?
It's an attempt to find a reasonable proxy answer for the question "when does life begin". In essence, it revolves around the suggestion that when a foetus is capable of independent existence (no, not self sufficiency), then it exists as living being in its own right.
It's not completely satisfactory, and as you say is muddied by the advance of medical technology. But by the same token, try telling grieving parents that their late term miscarriage wasn't a real life.
Yes, a fair point. As you say, at best it's a proxy answer to the real question.
I really struggle to understand this idea that MPs have a 'duty' to vote for A50.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
That would be fine because you would vote against the referendum bill in the first place. This is not the position many europhilic MPs took.
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks.snip
@Charles On fathers rights: well exactly. It's hard to create a situation where fathers rights mean that the mothers rights aren't overruled. I'm of the position that since the mother is carrying the child, her rights take precedent. She is also likely to be the primary care giver as well, in the event of the child being born and not being placed in social service care.
On police brutality. There is a long history of police brutality towards certain groups in America, most notably when those groups were not breaking the law but simply fighting for their civil rights. So I think I'm understanding those who ''complain about police brutality'' on this one.
On term limits it sounds like we broadly agree on viability being an appropriate age
On father's rights - difficult. One route might be around the mother playing the role of a surrogate (and being compensated accordingly for it) but not easy.
On police brutality - disagree. If a known gang member, for instance, who the police believe to have a gun, is shot and killed I have little sympathy. If a fat man running away is shot in the back that strikes me as an inappropriate use of force (not sure it is "brutality" though). Both of these apply regardless of colour which should make absolutely zero difference in how people judge the police officer's actions
Colour and history will, whether any of us like it or not, shape how many minorities in America view the police's use of force. This is primarily because colour has been a dividing line throughout much of American history, and for many miniorities it continues to effect their lives. And on the gang member example, the crucial word is 'believe'. Sometimes what law enforcement believe and what is actually the case is two different things. But in any case, since being in a possession of a gun is a legal right in America I'm not too sure whether I'm on board with gun possession in itself giving officers the right to use force.
And Obama didn't just fail - his administration welcomed BLM et al to the WH and stirred up a load of racial shit. That's his legacy IMO - shameful, he had the golden opportunity to transform and the media sucking up to him.
It's an attempt to find a reasonable proxy answer for the question "when does life begin". In essence, it revolves around the suggestion that when a foetus is capable of independent existence (no, not self sufficiency), then it exists as living being in its own right.
It's not completely satisfactory, and as you say is muddied by the advance of medical technology. But by the same token, try telling grieving parents that their late term miscarriage wasn't a real life.
Yes, a fair point. As you say, at best it's a proxy answer to the real question.
Re Abortion:
The statement "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong" does not involve any religious overtones, and is a clear argument against abortion.
Not my argument by the way, but one that is relevant to the debate in America.
I said I didn't think that those who wanted earlier term limits were misogynists. There's a difference between that and those who oppose abortion under any circumstances.
You were being a bit defensive in assuming my views on those advocating earlier term dates.
Well I guess it's relevant in terms of the debate of do you see the unborn child as having equal rights to the mother - which is a key part of the abortion debate.
Those who are religious can think what they like on abortion - the point is they shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. If they don't like abortion, they don't have to have one. But not everyone is religious, or wants to live their life by all religious moral guidelines.
I wouldn't frame the debate in terms of equal rights at all. I'd frame it in terms of relative harm.
In other words, does it do more harm to allow a mother to have an abortion or to forbid it?
The answer to that is going to depend on a lot of things - the point at which a foetus is considered a human being, socio economic factors, cultural factors etc - there are so many variables that you end up creating a general rule which is approximately right in most circumstances. But there will be an element of doubt about what that rule should be. Do you resolve it in favour of the child or the mother?
I'd have to say the child. Carrying a baby to term carries health risks, but so does abortion. Being aborted carries the certainty of death.
So I end up saying that you formulate a rule which says a mother can have an abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy because I can't think of any other basis on which you could frame a general rule. But in picking that point, I'd err on the side of the child.
Which I guess is a roundabout way of saying that I think our law is about right, and the fundamentalists (on both sides) are wrong.
Under the new understanding of democracy (losing side going on marches to prevent the winning result standing/being put into action), I have to say "Democracy in action!"
I really struggle to understand this idea that MPs have a 'duty' to vote for A50.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
Which is why there has never been a Referendum on capital punishment.
But there has been a referendum on the EU, presumably because there was either no issue with a result to Leave, or there was, but it was never considered a likely outcome.
I was just thinking back a year. I certainly couldn't envision us voting to Leave. I was still probably a Remainer a year back - just. But based on the expectation that we would get at least some material changes to our relationship with the EU. Because that was what the Prime Minister had promised.
It's an attempt to find a reasonable proxy answer for the question "when does life begin". In essence, it revolves around the suggestion that when a foetus is capable of independent existence (no, not self sufficiency), then it exists as living being in its own right.
It's not completely satisfactory, and as you say is muddied by the advance of medical technology. But by the same token, try telling grieving parents that their late term miscarriage wasn't a real life.
Yes, a fair point. As you say, at best it's a proxy answer to the real question.
Re Abortion:
The statement "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong" does not involve any religious overtones, and is a clear argument against abortion.
Not my argument by the way, but one that is relevant to the debate in America.
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
So in the post fact alternative truth world this is great news!
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
Yes, I posted on this yesterday. It's potentially a very, very big story.
Those in the US who are pushing this idea claim it's like VAT 'because VAT is charged on imports'. This is nonsense, of course - VAT is neutral between home-produced and imported goods. It's clearly an import tariff by a different name, and a rather odd one at that. There would certainly be a case brought against the US in the WTO if they tried to implement this, and although IANAL I can't see it being ruled as compatible with WTO rules. But the US might withdraw from the WTO.
In other words, this could be the start of a collapse of international trade as we know it - which is very scary.
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
Indeed. And as (ahem) mentioned on this board yesterday, it looks like it can be implemented without recourse to the WTO or other supranational trade bodies. On one level, very smart.
On another, the worst kind of mercantilist blackmail, of course; but being able to trade in the biggest domestic market in the world is a huge plum....
I really struggle to understand this idea that MPs have a 'duty' to vote for A50.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
They passed the decision to the people; the people decided. The people were told that the government would implement the decision and no-one of consequence dissented from that. The people have a right to expect that implementation to take place.
@Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.
On the defensive? Defensive of whom? I was describing other people's views, not mine.
Not with much success, it has to be said.
Incidentally, I've never really understood why the date at which a premature baby can survive outside the womb is relevant to the question, especially when that makes the cut-off date dependent on technological advances in incubator design and medical gizmos. For that matter, a new-born baby can't survive unaided. It's always seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant point, and it's certainly irrelevant for those whose opposition to abortion is based on a religious principle.
Very off topic - but kinda relevant.
One of the unfortunate blindspots of PB is the hardcore religious right.
The people with serious moral objections to the idea of political betting generally don't visit the site and/or comment.
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
@SpenceLivermore: Voting for Article 50 is worse than giving Theresa May a blank cheque - it's giving her a cheque made out to Donald Trump
/ducks
Trump couldn't have come at a worse time for the advocates of Brexit. His looming presence will utterly taint any settlement the government manages to wrangle. Whatever happens now, it will always be perceived as Donald's Brexit, with Donald calling the shots and assuming full ownership. When Theresa signs the agreement, she doesn't want anyone with any ink hanging around.
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
Yes, I posted on this yesterday. It's potentially a very, very big story.
Those in the US who are pushing this idea claim it's like VAT 'because VAT is charged on imports'. This is nonsense, of course - VAT is neutral between home-produced and imported goods. It's clearly an import tariff by a different name, and a rather odd one at that. There would certainly be a case brought against the US in the WTO if they tried to implement this, and although IANAL I can't see it being ruled as compatible with WTO rules. But the US might withdraw from the WTO.
In other words, this could be the start of a collapse of international trade as we know it - which is very scary.
The Trump administration does not want a world where the relations between states are under the auspices of multinational bodies, but one where big sticks talk.
I find myself quite relaxed about a lot of the Trump agenda, but - as you say - this potentially presages tit-for-tat protectionism around the world. Which will make us all much, much poorer.
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.
They can, but it would have to be indirect. A president's power (or a prime minister's) rests at least as much on the willingness of others to go along with them as with the powers of their office. If others are less willing to go along with him - which they would be if social shaming were effective (it may or may not be depending on the issue and how it's handled) - that will impact on what he can get done.
Is the Trumpsters import duty plan only on physical goods? What about digital items created outside of the US, then "imported" and sold there? Or services where some of the service is provided by employees located overseas?
It's an attempt to find a reasonable proxy answer for the question "when does life begin". In essence, it revolves around the suggestion that when a foetus is capable of independent existence (no, not self sufficiency), then it exists as living being in its own right.
It's not completely satisfactory, and as you say is muddied by the advance of medical technology. But by the same token, try telling grieving parents that their late term miscarriage wasn't a real life.
Yes, a fair point. As you say, at best it's a proxy answer to the real question.
Re Abortion:
The statement "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong" does not involve any religious overtones, and is a clear argument against abortion.
Not my argument by the way, but one that is relevant to the debate in America.
What about the morning after pill?
Doesn't that prevent pregnancy taking - so not life ending - and short window. IIRC, it doesn't stop a pregnancy - just conception taking place.
"There are two kinds of emergency contraceptive pill. Levonelle has to be taken within 72 hours (three days) of sex, and ellaOne has to be taken within 120 hours (five days) of sex. Both work by preventing or delaying ovulation (release of an egg). http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/emergency-contraception.aspx
And Obama didn't just fail - his administration welcomed BLM et al to the WH and stirred up a load of racial shit. That's his legacy IMO - shameful, he had the golden opportunity to transform and the media sucking up to him.
Urgh.
Obama didn't stir up any racial shit. That racial shit has been existience for centuries in the US and was stirred up as soon as slaves were taken off slave ships. Obama was ultimately limited in being able transform anything, especially matters of race in the US. Many don't even believe African American experiences.
Does any Clayhead think Nuttall is local, with is accent and his well known story of being a professional footballer and wannabe academic on Merseyside?
I really struggle to understand this idea that MPs have a 'duty' to vote for A50.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
The only reason there would be a referendum is if the MPs had already voted to have one. If you don't want to accept the verdict of the people, don't ask them!
It seems to me a bit like the election of Corbyn: MPs had the opportunity (or even duty) to filter out anyone who was not suitable, and after that they agreed to accept the views of the Labour Party members.
Is the Trumpsters import duty plan only on physical goods? What about digital items created outside of the US, then "imported" and sold there? Or services where some of the service is provided by employees located overseas?
Thinking about Genius Sports (formerly Betgenius), it's a big question. Currently, we supply sports data (odds, etc.) to customers in the US. If its - say - basketball, then we have scores collected in stadiums in the US (domestic cost), then analysts and computer systems in the UK and Estonia process it and turn those scores into a product, which is then sold to customers in the US.
A local address on the paperwork looks better, although Nuttall has never claimed to be local.
Thanks. Still seems strange though... Surely the idea of looking better requires people to know it... Which seems rather a big risk to take if it's a false address!
Is the Trumpsters import duty plan only on physical goods? What about digital items created outside of the US, then "imported" and sold there? Or services where some of the service is provided by employees located overseas?
Thinking about Genius Sports (formerly Betgenius), it's a big question. Currently, we supply sports data (odds, etc.) to customers in the US. If its - say - basketball, then we have scores collected in stadiums in the US (domestic cost), then analysts and computer systems in the UK and Estonia process it and turn those scores into a product, which is then sold to customers in the US.
Thinking about Genius Sports (formerly Betgenius), it's a big question. Currently, we supply sports data (odds, etc.) to customers in the US. If its - say - basketball, then we have scores collected in stadiums in the US (domestic cost), then analysts and computer systems in the UK and Estonia process it and turn those scores into a product, which is then sold to customers in the US.
Where do the taxes fall?
I don't think they've figured out how (or even if) it would apply to services.
Is the Trumpsters import duty plan only on physical goods? What about digital items created outside of the US, then "imported" and sold there? Or services where some of the service is provided by employees located overseas?
Thinking about Genius Sports (formerly Betgenius), it's a big question. Currently, we supply sports data (odds, etc.) to customers in the US. If its - say - basketball, then we have scores collected in stadiums in the US (domestic cost), then analysts and computer systems in the UK and Estonia process it and turn those scores into a product, which is then sold to customers in the US.
Where do the taxes fall?
BTW the link on your website to the github repo results in a 404.
@SpenceLivermore: Voting for Article 50 is worse than giving Theresa May a blank cheque - it's giving her a cheque made out to Donald Trump
/ducks
Trump couldn't have come at a worse time for the advocates of Brexit. His looming presence will utterly taint any settlement the government manages to wrangle. Whatever happens now, it will always be perceived as Donald's Brexit, with Donald calling the shots and assuming full ownership. When Theresa signs the agreement, she doesn't want anyone with any ink hanging around.
Trump doesn't affect Brexit one way or another. Trump is for 8 years maximum. Brexit is for life. I hope you have got your head around that or you are going to have a very miserable existence.
Comments
If the EU can play the Sindy card to put Westminster in a weak position, so can Trump, and perhaps even more painfully.
UKIP, or UKIP in kilts...
It's appalling
*makes placard*
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/507125513/pussy-hat?ref=related-3
"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."
How many bullets do I have in the gun?
No sugar Sherlock.....
But Mutti would go to DC 'as soon as they wanted'
You going to label her 'a bitch in heat' like May was labelled?
Oh wait.
Edit to add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yes, per capita.
@Charles On fathers rights: well exactly. It's hard to create a situation where fathers rights mean that the mothers rights aren't overruled. I'm of the position that since the mother is carrying the child, her rights take precedent. She is also likely to be the primary care giver as well, in the event of the child being born and not being placed in social service care.
On police brutality. There is a long history of police brutality towards certain groups in America, most notably when those groups were not breaking the law but simply fighting for their civil rights. So I think I'm understanding those who ''complain about police brutality'' on this one.
Salmond's rhetoric of adolescent fantasy is exquisite. Old uncle Eck is a national treasure.
Donald Trump,
That's Donald Trump,
is going to put up his hand and say... "I/we screwed up. I'm sorry." instead of blaming democrats, Washington, ,the media, nasty judges, immigrants, women etc... ?
On father's rights - difficult. One route might be around the mother playing the role of a surrogate (and being compensated accordingly for it) but not easy.
On police brutality - disagree. If a known gang member, for instance, who the police believe to have a gun, is shot and killed I have little sympathy. If a fat man running away is shot in the back that strikes me as an inappropriate use of force (not sure it is "brutality" though). Both of these apply regardless of colour which should make absolutely zero difference in how people judge the police officer's actions
No, you don't, do you?
Catholics aren't pro life from a religious perspective? I can't say I agree. I agree that faith is more important for Americans - but that doesn't mean you impose your morality on others. Polling back in 2012 regarding abortion here, showed that even British Catholics felt that abortion should be legal.
Many pro lifers don't adopt and nor do they advocate adopting unwanted kids alongside their pro life status. Of many of the GOPers who are pro life John McCain is amongst the few who have adopted children.
Not with much success, it has to be said.
Still I'm pleased to hear that you don't think those who oppose abortion under any circumstances are misogynistic.
Incidentally, I've never really understood why the date at which a premature baby can survive outside the womb is relevant to the question, especially when that makes the cut-off date dependent on technological advances in incubator design and medical gizmos. For that matter, a new-born baby can't survive unaided. It's always seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant point, and it's certainly irrelevant for those whose opposition to abortion is based on a religious principle.
From a Brexiteer who is still hailing Osborne's economic miracle as justification for throwing it all away...
I'd do the same.
(no offence, obvs)
/ducks
Thank you grasshopper.....the mist has started to clear
You were being a bit defensive in assuming my views on those advocating earlier term dates.
Well I guess it's relevant in terms of the debate of do you see the unborn child as having equal rights to the mother - which is a key part of the abortion debate.
Those who are religious can think what they like on abortion - the point is they shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. If they don't like abortion, they don't have to have one. But not everyone is religious, or wants to live their life by all religious moral guidelines.
If capital punishment was passed in a referendum (God forbid) I wouldn't vote for it in parliament were I an MP. And nor, would I suggest, ought abolitionist MPs.
You get these issues when you break with the simple principles of representative democracy.
Guess which one there was a fuss about?
It's not completely satisfactory, and as you say is muddied by the advance of medical technology. But by the same token, try telling grieving parents that their late term miscarriage wasn't a real life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9227011/US-tycoon-Donald-Trump-appears-in-Scottish-Parliament.html
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/826793440868519936
@bbclaurak: ICYMI, govt quietly dropped trade target of £1 trillion a year this morning, Fox said, "I think it's unlikely to be achievable."
There is now an official name for the tax on the profits of imported goods: it's called the Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).
The details of the BTA are still somewhat hazy but look roughly like this - if Acme Inc sells a product for $100, then it will be able to offset its domestically source costs against tax, but not its imported costs.
So, let's say you make a widget which sells for $100, and which contains $40 of imported material and $50 of labour, then previously you would have paid tax on your $10 profit. Now, you will pay tax on the $50 of profit *plus* imported costs.
A few observations: Firstly, this is very bad for Apple and tech companies with long international supply chains. Secondly, this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for many businesses. Thirdly, it's going to completely stuff Canadian crude oil relative to Middle Eastern. Fourthly, there is going to be a massive amount of haggling and begging for special exemptions, especially on low-cost products where the cost of compliance will be high (and what do with product which is exported, processed and then re-imported). Fifthly, some retailers are going to be totally stuffed. Sixthly, imagine for a second the consequence of the UK government doing the same to Apple Retail (UK) Ltd that has 2bn of sales and no profits. (And where - presumably - the vast bulk of costs are imported.)
But then it would probably still be called the EEC - and not have super-state aspirations.
Urgh.
Cancels a trip due to protests...
Huh.
The statement "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong" does not involve any religious overtones, and is a clear argument against abortion.
Not my argument by the way, but one that is relevant to the debate in America.
In other words, does it do more harm to allow a mother to have an abortion or to forbid it?
The answer to that is going to depend on a lot of things - the point at which a foetus is considered a human being, socio economic factors, cultural factors etc - there are so many variables that you end up creating a general rule which is approximately right in most circumstances. But there will be an element of doubt about what that rule should be. Do you resolve it in favour of the child or the mother?
I'd have to say the child. Carrying a baby to term carries health risks, but so does abortion. Being aborted carries the certainty of death.
So I end up saying that you formulate a rule which says a mother can have an abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy because I can't think of any other basis on which you could frame a general rule. But in picking that point, I'd err on the side of the child.
Which I guess is a roundabout way of saying that I think our law is about right, and the fundamentalists (on both sides) are wrong.
But there has been a referendum on the EU, presumably because there was either no issue with a result to Leave, or there was, but it was never considered a likely outcome.
I was just thinking back a year. I certainly couldn't envision us voting to Leave. I was still probably a Remainer a year back - just. But based on the expectation that we would get at least some material changes to our relationship with the EU. Because that was what the Prime Minister had promised.
Lets Make America Great Again
Those in the US who are pushing this idea claim it's like VAT 'because VAT is charged on imports'. This is nonsense, of course - VAT is neutral between home-produced and imported goods. It's clearly an import tariff by a different name, and a rather odd one at that. There would certainly be a case brought against the US in the WTO if they tried to implement this, and although IANAL I can't see it being ruled as compatible with WTO rules. But the US might withdraw from the WTO.
In other words, this could be the start of a collapse of international trade as we know it - which is very scary.
@Richard_Nabavi Abortion and Infanticide are not the same thing. But I think you know that.
On another, the worst kind of mercantilist blackmail, of course; but being able to trade in the biggest domestic market in the world is a huge plum....
You don't have to have your home address published but only the constituency in which you live. Giving an incorrect address is another matter.
One of the unfortunate blindspots of PB is the hardcore religious right.
The people with serious moral objections to the idea of political betting generally don't visit the site and/or comment.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nwhyte/1071362/580741/580741_300.jpg
I find myself quite relaxed about a lot of the Trump agenda, but - as you say - this potentially presages tit-for-tat protectionism around the world. Which will make us all much, much poorer.
"There are two kinds of emergency contraceptive pill. Levonelle has to be taken within 72 hours (three days) of sex, and ellaOne has to be taken within 120 hours (five days) of sex. Both work by preventing or delaying ovulation (release of an egg). http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/emergency-contraception.aspx
It seems to me a bit like the election of Corbyn: MPs had the opportunity (or even duty) to filter out anyone who was not suitable, and after that they agreed to accept the views of the Labour Party members.
Where do the taxes fall?
Still seems strange though... Surely the idea of looking better requires people to know it... Which seems rather a big risk to take if it's a false address!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_senators_by_age