TSE-plse explain WHY you loathe & detest DT.He was elected on a platform for change & is attempting to carry out that agenda unlike previous POTUS'S.He represents the forgotten army of people left behind.He abhors PC as I do .You like many others on this site & beyond cannot see past your utter hatred for the man which of course is no basis for reasoned argument.Perhaps you should find a quiet spot for reflection.
I think it's because Trump's a racist shitbag.
And a misogynist too.
Just imagine what his defenders would say if a Muslim politician had said 'Grab them by the pussy'
He'd probably be supported by the left.
And you win today's non sequitur of the day award.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter ! & France, Germany and the rest of the EU won't adopt a 'Singapore' approach on tarrifs I'm quite sure.
Again, I hope May is a good poker player because her hand is ultimately mince.
Except that the UK leaving without a deal would also be disastrous (some observers think even more disastrous) for the EU27. Therefore it's not so much poker as herding 27 cats towards an outcome which is in their own interests.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
Maybe because of the utterly ham-fisted way in which it was done?
Hmm ... So a vote in two years time between Leave or go without a deal makes the UK Parliament a rubber stamp, because they can't vote for a WTO deal.
The real crunch is here.
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
If the latter, we can add about 10% to the Ukip vote in Stoke. It may be close then.
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
TSE-plse explain WHY you loathe & detest DT.He was elected on a platform for change & is attempting to carry out that agenda unlike previous POTUS'S.He represents the forgotten army of people left behind.He abhors PC as I do .You like many others on this site & beyond cannot see past your utter hatred for the man which of course is no basis for reasoned argument.Perhaps you should find a quiet spot for reflection.
I think it's because Trump's a racist shitbag.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
So you now support voting for the article 50 enabling bill
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
Ah, I didn't realise the referendum question was "Should the United Kingdom tell the European Union we want to leave?".
@Torcuil: Aberdeen seagulls are size of large dogs, says @KirstySNP in Westmin Hall and they are noisy plague, as anyone whose been to Aberdeen knows
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
Even if the CJEU say this is legal, I can't see it will ever be tenable here or in Brussels.
Here the kippers and the Tory right will scream that its a stitch-up with Brussels to offer the worse possible deal and guarantee a revocation, they may even be half right, Brussels might do that without any collusion.
In Brussels the federalists (ie. most of them) are not going to want us back on the old terms, grumbling and complaining and obstructing everything, and are going to have the deep suspicion that we will wait for a couple of EU elections to swing our way and that try again. Also they have quite advanced plans for 'more Europe' which are kind of predicated on us going, because they are absolutely the sort of things we will try and scupper if we stay in.
If it's legal, it's legal and you can probably just stick a pipe in any idea of tenability.
Even if we don't get to know whether it's legal to revoke inside the next 2 years, couldn't we try revoking just to see at the very end of the process, get the Brexit process put on ice and watch Europe run about like headless chickens for several months whilst the ECJ comes to a ruling. Even if that sounds horrible from the point of view of your political aims, it would be a popcorntastic jape!
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
"On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy"
Yes, that poll showing twice as many British people agreeing with the statement "All further immigration from mainly muslim countries stopped" than disagreeing was taken before Trump made his EO. Maybe people agree with the policy, but don't like to be seen agreeing with the person espousing it. Has happened many times before in polling
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
So you now support voting for the article 50 enabling bill
I've never really argued against it. Stopping the invocation of Article 50 was never a realistic proposition in the absence of a Scottish veto. The real fight can only start after that point.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
Maybe because of the utterly ham-fisted way in which it was done?
I definitely think that's a part of it. But that's the mistake that Trump and Bannon made - rushing their policy and not getting legal advice. But I think there is genuine opposition to banning someone on the back of their country of birth. I think that methods of extreme vetting that don't involve this would have been a better move for Trump. Even in America, recent CNN, PPP, Gallup and CBS polls have all showed Americans opposing Trump's policy, after the earlier polls showing support.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
"On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy"
Yes, that poll was taken before Trump made his EO. Maybe people agree with the policy, but don't like to be seen agreeing with the person espousing it. Has happened many times before in polling
Maybe. We may find out in the future whether this is the case or not.
Ms. Apocalypse, Trump's an oaf, and his executive order on travel was ill-conceived and unjust. That doesn't mean it's ok for the Speaker to wade into Foreign affairs. Entirely possible to dislike both Trump and Bercow.
Once article 50 is invoked, the EU have control not the sovereign British Parliament. Sovereignty is achieved after we get out of the EU state tentacles
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
Maybe because of the utterly ham-fisted way in which it was done?
I definitely think that's a part of it. But that's the mistake that Trump and Bannon made - rushing their policy and not getting legal advice. But I think there is genuine opposition to banning someone on the back of their country of birth. I think that methods of extreme vetting that don't involve this would have been a better move for Trump. Even in America, recent CNN, PPP, Gallup and CBS polls have all showed Americans opposing Trump's policy, after the earlier polls showing support.
Do the majority oppose in principle, or because it was done in such a ridiculous way by immediately banning holders of valid visas, and banning refugees? Based on the poll isam posted above, I suspect a non-retroactive policy wouldn't have quite as much opposition.
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
Ah, I didn't realise the referendum question was "Should the United Kingdom tell the European Union we want to leave?".
The United Kingdom leaving the European Union is an existential threat to both political concepts and can also happen by dissolving either of them. My money's on the EU outlasting the UK.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and potentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
"On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy"
Yes, that poll showing twice as many British people agreeing with the statement "All further immigration from mainly muslim countries stopped" than disagreeing was taken before Trump made his EO. Maybe people agree with the policy, but don't like to be seen agreeing with the person espousing it. Has happened many times before in polling
The Trump ban did not just cover immigrants, but all visitors, as well as people who already live in the US.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
Maybe because of the utterly ham-fisted way in which it was done?
I definitely think that's a part of it. But that's the mistake that Trump and Bannon made - rushing their policy and not getting legal advice. But I think there is genuine opposition to banning someone on the back of their country of birth. I think that methods of extreme vetting that don't involve this would have been a better move for Trump. Even in America, recent CNN, PPP, Gallup and CBS polls have all showed Americans opposing Trump's policy, after the earlier polls showing support.
Do the majority oppose in principle, or because it was done in such a ridiculous way by immediately banning holders of valid visas, and banning refugees? Based on the poll isam posted above, I suspect a non-retroactive policy wouldn't have quite as much opposition.
I posted in a previous thread a RCP article which showed prior to the EO Americans opposing a ban based on religion so I wouldn't put it down enterily to the implementation.
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
Ah, I didn't realise the referendum question was "Should the United Kingdom tell the European Union we want to leave?".
The United Kingdom leaving the European Union is an existential threat to both political concepts and can also happen by dissolving either of them. My money's on the EU outlasting the UK.
What has that got to do with Article 50 supposedly fulfilling the referendum mandate? It most certainly doesn't.
Ms. Apocalypse, on defence of Trump/his supporters: it's a natural response when some who want to burnish their right-on credentials start endorsing political violence because 'Nazis'.
The alternative is to either agree with them that political violence is ok or shrug and say nothing. That's why hysterical reactions (instead of forensic policy critiquing and preparing for the mid-terms) are doomed to backfire.
Ms. Apocalypse, Trump's an oaf, and his executive order on travel was ill-conceived and unjust. That doesn't mean it's ok for the Speaker to wade into Foreign affairs. Entirely possible to dislike both Trump and Bercow.
I wasn't thinking of the Bercow situation specifically, or indeed at all when making that post. I agree that you can be critical of Bercow's actions and oppose Trump. My thoughts were a more general observation.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
Maybe because of the utterly ham-fisted way in which it was done?
I definitely think that's a part of it. But that's the mistake that Trump and Bannon made - rushing their policy and not getting legal advice. But I think there is genuine opposition to banning someone on the back of their country of birth. I think that methods of extreme vetting that don't involve this would have been a better move for Trump. Even in America, recent CNN, PPP, Gallup and CBS polls have all showed Americans opposing Trump's policy, after the earlier polls showing support.
Do the majority oppose in principle, or because it was done in such a ridiculous way by immediately banning holders of valid visas, and banning refugees? Based on the poll isam posted above, I suspect a non-retroactive policy wouldn't have quite as much opposition.
I posted in a previous thread a RCP article which showed prior to the EO Americans opposing a ban based on religion so I wouldn't put it down enterily to the implementation.
I guess there are significant differences between Europe and America on this, the poll below showed striking support for that sort of policy. Do you have a link to that article? I had a cursory search but couldn't find anything.
Alaex Salmond on his feet in the Commons making a strong case against breaking up a Union without knowing what the future trading and legal agreements would be...
Oh.
At least the Yes/SNP side had a clear plan and policy - see section 1 and 393 et seq. of 'Scotland's Future'
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and potentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
In the past racism has enabled and been used to justify all of those.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and peotentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth. But I doubt we'll agree on this one. Indeed when making my post I anticipated your opposition to my views.
As for racism and sexism: well your last paragraph confirms my point re PBers. My own personal view, which is probably obvious, is that I do consider racism and sexism a high crime. Especially since such views are not just a belief system or an ideology, but can be basis for societies were things such as genoicide, slavery, etc occur - indeed history does show this.
Mr. Herdson, Bercow proved right from the start when he campaigned for the job he doesn't care about convention, something again proven when he decided neutrality doesn't matter any more if he decides otherwise. He'd get a majority, probably a small one, and stick around anyway.
I'm not sure he could. Labour (or sensible Labour) would probably cut a deal with the Tories if it looked as if the Commons would be unmanageable with open warfare between Bercow and the government, with the aim of putting one of their own - Hoyle - in the Chair. The alternative would be to sit back with the popcorn but at the cost of letting the Tories run the next Speakership election.
Why will Bercow wish to stand down in 2018 when he is enjoying the position so much?
Bercow was elected to Speaker in 2009 and said he’d serve 9 years, according to some reports. – The recent speculation of his standing down in 2018 is based on that I believe, but nothing more.
I guess there are significant differences between Europe and America on this, the poll below showed striking support for that sort of policy. Do you have a link to that article? I had a cursory search but couldn't find anything.
I don't have on me right now (I'm typing on my phone and haven't got it saved on safari). Regarding my posting if the link, it may go back a week ago. I was talking with SeanT at the time. If I can find it later on, I'll post it for you.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and potentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
In the past racism has enabled and been used to justify all of those.
I guess there are significant differences between Europe and America on this, the poll below showed striking support for that sort of policy. Do you have a link to that article? I had a cursory search but couldn't find anything.
I don't have on me right now (I'm typing on my phone and haven't got it saved on safari). Regarding my posting if the link, it may go back a week ago. I was talking with SeanT at the time. If I can find it later on, I'll post it for you.
Ms. Apocalypse, on defence of Trump/his supporters: it's a natural response when some who want to burnish their right-on credentials start endorsing political violence because 'Nazis'.
The alternative is to either agree with them that political violence is ok or shrug and say nothing. That's why hysterical reactions (instead of forensic policy critiquing and preparing for the mid-terms) are doomed to backfire.
I'm not too sure whether a vast majority of Trump critics are dedicated to spending their time endorsing punching Nazis. From my social media it's tumblr types who are doing this, and the coalition against Trump is much more wider and diverse than those people.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and potentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
In the past racism has enabled and been used to justify all of those.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
My post said 'quite few' not an overwhelmingly majority. As for hundreds posting here, on a daily or even weekly basis hundreds do not post on PB. It's less than that.
Why will Bercow wish to stand down in 2018 when he is enjoying the position so much?
Bercow was elected to Speaker in 2009 and said he’d serve 9 years, according to some reports. – The recent speculation of his standing down in 2018 is based on that I believe, but nothing more.
Yes, I think (if memory serves correct) when he made his "pitch" to the Commons to become Speaker he said he'd only serve "X" amount of years.
Can't remember exactly how many years he said but if he sticks to his word he must be coming towards the end of his tenure.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and peotentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth. But I doubt we'll agree on this one. Indeed when making my post I anticipated your opposition to my views.
As for racism and sexism: well your last paragraph confirms my point re PBers. My own personal view, which is probably obvious, is that I do consider racism and sexism a high crime. Especially since such views are not just a belief system or an ideology, but can be basis for societies were things such as genoicide, slavery, etc occur - indeed history does show this.
These "observations about PBers thoughts" are a sort of passive aggressive whininess invented by tim (who was probably before your time). PBers' thoughts are knowable to you only from what they post; so if you detect undue enthusiasm for trump and tolerance of trumpian sexism and racism you must be detecting these things in specific post(s), and your best course of action is to reply to or refer to those specific posts. This generalised whining, identifying neither a specific post nor a specific poster, suggests either that your claims are based on no evidence, or that you are unwilling to enter into an argument with a specific poster because you doubt your ability to win the argument.
Twitter have filed a lawsuit against Trump's EO on immigration...
It'll go to the supreme court.
The important questions are:
Will Gorsuch be sitting at that point & which way will Justice Kennedy go.
why are you assuming Gorsuch will vote with Trump?
I'm not, but Trump definitely can't win the case without Gorsuch in place.
The 4 more liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg) must be absolute locks to uphold the lower court's decision.
A 4-4 split would not overturn the lower court, and so Trump needs Gorsuch in place to have any chance of overturning (And also Kennedy to vote with the more conservative justices).
It is neccesary, but not sufficient to have both Gorsuch in and Kennedy voting on the conservative side I believe for Trump to win.
As such I'd say it is odds on that the ban will found to be unconstitutional.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and peotentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth. But I doubt we'll agree on this one. Indeed when making my post I anticipated your opposition to my views.
As for racism and sexism: well your last paragraph confirms my point re PBers. My own personal view, which is probably obvious, is that I do consider racism and sexism a high crime. Especially since such views are not just a belief system or an ideology, but can be basis for societies were things such as genoicide, slavery, etc occur - indeed history does show this.
These "observations about PBers thoughts" are a sort of passive aggressive whininess invented by tim (who was probably before your time). PBers' thoughts are knowable to you only from what they post; so if you detect undue enthusiasm for trump and tolerance of trumpian sexism and racism you must be detecting these things in specific post(s), and your best course of action is to reply to or refer to those specific posts. This generalised whining, identifying neither a specific post nor a specific poster, suggests either that your claims are based on no evidence, or that you are unwilling to enter into an argument with a specific poster because you doubt your ability to win the argument.
More briefly: put up or shut up.
If you want to see my posts as whining that's up to you. But I'll exercise my right to voice my thoughts as I please. I don't really have to put up or shut up as you say. Edit: and plenty of people make generalisations about the Left on this site....
Pragaru Trump has successfully trolled the media into extensively covering Islamic terror in order to defend itself against him. https://t.co/f7NNZjk645
Scott Adams The time President Trump stuck his hand up the Opposition Media's butt, turned them into a hand puppet, and still made them think they won. https://t.co/eRC689wGqn
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
Ah, I didn't realise the referendum question was "Should the United Kingdom tell the European Union we want to leave?".
The United Kingdom leaving the European Union is an existential threat to both political concepts and can also happen by dissolving either of them. My money's on the EU outlasting the UK.
When do you envisage Welsh independence taking place?
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and potentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
In the past racism has enabled and been used to justify all of those.
Yes, and so has socialism.
I would be very concerned if Trump was surrounding himself with revolutionary Communists, too. The fact is that even in the US, racism has directly led to all the things you quite rightly condemn - and often within living memory; some within the last 15 years.
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
I agree
If you keep flicking someone's ear when they tell you they don't like it, eventually they stop telling you and give you a smack in the mouth instead
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Are the hijackers from Cambridge and don't fancy the trip round the M25 ?
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Are the hijackers from Cambridge and don't fancy the trip round the M25 ?
Those variable speed cameras are the spawn of Satan, so you're probably right.
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Ah, the delights of Pakistan International Airways. I once travelled with my boss back from Islamabad on PIA. He was a notoriously finicky eater, who hated most international travel because of the indignities to his palate. The look on his face was a picture when PIA served his breakfast muesli - writhing with weevils....
EDIT: I'm not suggesting the disruptive passenger was him. But, on reflection...
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals for getting the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radioactive dumps as long as it annoys the leftards?
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate. If anything happens subsequently that is of such consequence that we face a choice of not leaving, that decision will be made on its own merits and not with reference to the result on June 23rd.
Ah, I didn't realise the referendum question was "Should the United Kingdom tell the European Union we want to leave?".
The United Kingdom leaving the European Union is an existential threat to both political concepts and can also happen by dissolving either of them. My money's on the EU outlasting the UK.
When do you envisage Welsh independence taking place?
I don't and it's not relevant to the question of whether the UK exists.
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Ah, the delights of Pakistan International Airways. I once travelled with my boss back from Islamabad on PIA. He was a notoriously finicky eater, who hated most international travel because of the indignities to his palate. The look on his face was a picture when PIA served his breakfast muesli - writhing with weevils....
EDIT: I'm not suggesting the disruptive passenger was him. But, on reflection...
I've flown PIA once in my life, never again.
Thank feck I don't have any relatives in Pakistan.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals to get the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radiocactive dumps as long as it annoys the lefties?
The biggest mistake is people believing this is a left vs right thing.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals for getting the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radiocactive dumps as long as it annoys the leftards?
I think trusting to the checks and balances built into the American Constitution is all we can hope for, from this side of the pond
"A faction within the Anonymous movement has claimed responsibility for hacking Freedom Hosting II, a hosting company for TOR based onion websites or the darknet.
Visitors to various websites hosted on the darknet were met with the message, “Hello, Freedom Hosting II, you have been hacked.”
The full statement read:
Hello Freedom Hosting II, you have been hacked. We are disappointed… This is an excerpt from your front page ‘We have a zero tolerance policy to child pornography.’?—?but what we found while searching through your server is more than 50% child porn…
All your files have been copied and your database has been dumped. (74GB of files and 2.3GB of database)...
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals to get the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radiocactive dumps as long as it annoys the lefties?
The biggest mistake is people believing this is a left vs right thing.
Yep, more a hand-holder v. a non hand-holder thing.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth. But I doubt we'll agree on this one. Indeed when making my post I anticipated your opposition to my views.
As for racism and sexism: well your last paragraph confirms my point re PBers. My own personal view, which is probably obvious, is that I do consider racism and sexism a high crime. Especially since such views are not just a belief system or an ideology, but can be basis for societies were things such as genoicide, slavery, etc occur - indeed history does show this.
These "observations about PBers thoughts" are a sort of passive aggressive whininess invented by tim (who was probably before your time). PBers' thoughts are knowable to you only from what they post; so if you detect undue enthusiasm for trump and tolerance of trumpian sexism and racism you must be detecting these things in specific post(s), and your best course of action is to reply to or refer to those specific posts. This generalised whining, identifying neither a specific post nor a specific poster, suggests either that your claims are based on no evidence, or that you are unwilling to enter into an argument with a specific poster because you doubt your ability to win the argument.
More briefly: put up or shut up.
If you want to see my posts as whining that's up to you. But I'll exercise my right to voice my thoughts as I please. I don't really have to put up or shut up as you say. Edit: and plenty of people make generalisations about the Left on this site....
Ho, no, sir; they are whiny all right, it isn't a subjective matter at all. And I love the attempt to refute an accusation of generalising which begins "and plenty of people...".
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals to get the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radiocactive dumps as long as it annoys the lefties?
The biggest mistake is people believing this is a left vs right thing.
I suspect a decreasing number of Republicans think Trump is ‘one of them’!
My Mum says the Pakistani news channels are reporting that a flight from Lahore to Heathrow has been diverted to Stanstead, with fighter jets as escorts.
Ah, the delights of Pakistan International Airways. I once travelled with my boss back from Islamabad on PIA. He was a notoriously finicky eater, who hated most international travel because of the indignities to his palate. The look on his face was a picture when PIA served his breakfast muesli - writhing with weevils....
EDIT: I'm not suggesting the disruptive passenger was him. But, on reflection...
I think much air travel is perverse, polluting and wasteful, but I wouldn't wish a weevil-y meal on anyone. The guaranteed solution for your boss would be for him/her to pack one's own meal. This is a time honoured English practice. For instance I believe this is standard at Glyndebourne performances (?)
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals for getting the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radiocactive dumps as long as it annoys the leftards?
I think trusting to the checks and balances built into the American Constitution is all we can hope for, from this side of the pond
Indeed, I think non Americans underestimate how constrained POTUS actually is, I also doubt he’ll come anything close to the caricature he’s being portrayed as. – Then the Americans will re-elect him in 2020 and the merry-go-round will kick off again.
And a misogynist. But PBers have stated several times they don't consider sexism or racism the highest of crimes, and so thus the willingness to put aside those traits regarding Trump is not surprising.
You seem obsessed with views which you project on to 'PBers', which are largely the figment of your imagination.
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth. But I doubt we'll agree on this one. Indeed when making my post I anticipated your opposition to my views.
As for racism and sexism: well your last paragraph confirms my point re PBers. My own personal view, which is probably obvious, is that I do consider racism and sexism a high crime. Especially since such views are not just a belief system or an ideology, but can be basis for societies were things such as genoicide, slavery, etc occur - indeed history does show this.
These "observations about PBers thoughts" are a sort of passive aggressive whininess invented by tim (who was probably before your time). PBers' thoughts are knowable to you only from what they post; so if you detect undue enthusiasm for trump and tolerance of trumpian sexism and racism you must be detecting these things in specific post(s), and your best course of action is to reply to or refer to those specific posts. This generalised whining, identifying neither a specific post nor a specific poster, suggests either that your claims are based on no evidence, or that you are unwilling to enter into an argument with a specific poster because you doubt your ability to win the argument.
More briefly: put up or shut up.
If you want to see my posts as whining that's up to you. But I'll exercise my right to voice my thoughts as I please. I don't really have to put up or shut up as you say. Edit: and plenty of people make generalisations about the Left on this site....
Ho, no, sir; they are whiny all right, it isn't a subjective matter at all. And I love the attempt to refute an accusation of generalising which begins "and plenty of people...".
I didn't know you were the King or Queen of what is subjective and objective. Also I'm woman (regarding your use of sir).
Plenty of people on this site have made observations as to PBers thoughts. Indeed several have made similar observations to mine, so presumably we are all just imaginging. Or there is a hint of truth and many don't want to confront that truth.
There is a hint of truth - a tiny proportion of the hundreds of people who post here are sympathetic to or support Trump. The overwhelming majority, including nearly all 'PB Tories', do not support him.
Trump is a fascinating phenomenon. He has materialised as a consequence of what many on the right predicted - that if the liberal-left establishment just went ahead and did things in the name of the working (wo)man without getting them onside, because it was in their minds "the right thing to do - so fvck 'em if they object", then at some point those they claimed to be speaking for would violently disagree.
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
What are the Right's proposals to get the genie back in the bottle, or are you quite happy for Trumpzilla to stomp around doing huge, radiocactive dumps as long as it annoys the lefties?
The biggest mistake is people believing this is a left vs right thing.
I suspect a decreasing number of Republicans think Trump is ‘one of them’!
Redstate.com, home of the #NeverTrump movement during the election process, has recently been inundated with a flood of articles proclaiming the brilliance and wonderfulness of Trump's EOs.
Trump is throwing plenty of red meat for Republican value voters and fiscal deregulators.
They weren't anti-Trump because of his proposed actions but because they thought he couldn't win.
Comments
The real crunch is here.
If the Remainer MPs get a meaningful vote i.e. It can force the government to return and beg for concessions, which it won't get, and in the meantime, we stay until we do get a good deal (which we won't in those circumstances), it means the referendum result has been set aside.
If the latter, we can add about 10% to the Ukip vote in Stoke. It may be close then.
"Here are 10 things news organizations and journalists should watch for to avoid landing a starring role in one of these videos:
http://www.cjr.org/opinion/james-okeefe-media-sting-undercover.php
"Invoking Article 50 fulfils the referendum mandate,"
Dream on. Leaving the EU fulfils the Referendum mandate, Anything else will cause real anger and even the Labour Party realise that.
@Torcuil: Aberdeen seagulls are size of large dogs, says @KirstySNP in Westmin Hall and they are noisy plague, as anyone whose been to Aberdeen knows
Even if we don't get to know whether it's legal to revoke inside the next 2 years, couldn't we try revoking just to see at the very end of the process, get the Brexit process put on ice and watch Europe run about like headless chickens for several months whilst the ECJ comes to a ruling. Even if that sounds horrible from the point of view of your political aims, it would be a popcorntastic jape!
Yes, that poll showing twice as many British people agreeing with the statement "All further immigration from mainly muslim countries stopped" than disagreeing was taken before Trump made his EO. Maybe people agree with the policy, but don't like to be seen agreeing with the person espousing it. Has happened many times before in polling
The important questions are:
Will Gorsuch be sitting at that point & which way will Justice Kennedy go.
Mr. Eagles, indeed.
https://twitter.com/ParlyApp/status/828990581284147200
Once article 50 is invoked, the EU have control not the sovereign British Parliament. Sovereignty is achieved after we get out of the EU state tentacles
Leaving that aside, I was curious as to your implication that sexism or racism are the highest of crimes. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, who I think is an absolutely disastrous and potentially dangerous choice of president, but, for the record, no, I don't think think his sexism and racism, such as they are, are anything like the highest of crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd put genocide, war-mongering, torture, arbitrary arrest, curbing free speech, confiscation of property, or murdering political opponents, rather higher up on the scale of bad things politicians do.
The alternative is to either agree with them that political violence is ok or shrug and say nothing. That's why hysterical reactions (instead of forensic policy critiquing and preparing for the mid-terms) are doomed to backfire.
As for racism and sexism: well your last paragraph confirms my point re PBers. My own personal view, which is probably obvious, is that I do consider racism and sexism a high crime. Especially since such views are not just a belief system or an ideology, but can be basis for societies were things such as genoicide, slavery, etc occur - indeed history does show this.
Highest rating 154, a decent jumps career with 5 wins from 2009 to 2016.
Can't remember exactly how many years he said but if he sticks to his word he must be coming towards the end of his tenure.
More briefly: put up or shut up.
The 4 more liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg) must be absolute locks to uphold the lower court's decision.
A 4-4 split would not overturn the lower court, and so Trump needs Gorsuch in place to have any chance of overturning (And also Kennedy to vote with the more conservative justices).
It is neccesary, but not sufficient to have both Gorsuch in and Kennedy voting on the conservative side I believe for Trump to win.
As such I'd say it is odds on that the ban will found to be unconstitutional.
It looked great, I think even I would have enjoyed that.
Edit: and plenty of people make generalisations about the Left on this site....
Trump has successfully trolled the media into extensively covering Islamic terror in order to defend itself against him. https://t.co/f7NNZjk645
Scott Adams
The time President Trump stuck his hand up the Opposition Media's butt, turned them into a hand puppet, and still made them think they won. https://t.co/eRC689wGqn
That those on the Right thought the dangerous genie that is Trump would come out of the bottle if you kept rubbing it up the wrong way doesn't mean we approve. That is the mistake the liberal-left is making over Trump. The Right - certainly in Europe, and probably through much of the Republican Party - don't consider him "one of their own". However, there is a certain grim satisfaction that the genie should appear as expected. And a wry sense of fun at how the liberal-left propose to get him back in the bottle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/military-jets-escort-pakistan-international-airlines-flight/
If you keep flicking someone's ear when they tell you they don't like it, eventually they stop telling you and give you a smack in the mouth instead
(Well I guess they want a Deal or Remain referendum, but you can stick that.)
EDIT: I'm not suggesting the disruptive passenger was him. But, on reflection...
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/829000707021877248
Thank feck I don't have any relatives in Pakistan.
http://wearechange.org/anonymous-hacks-darknet-leaks-pedophile-databases/
"A faction within the Anonymous movement has claimed responsibility for hacking Freedom Hosting II, a hosting company for TOR based onion websites or the darknet.
Visitors to various websites hosted on the darknet were met with the message, “Hello, Freedom Hosting II, you have been hacked.”
The full statement read:
Hello Freedom Hosting II, you have been hacked. We are disappointed… This is an excerpt from your front page ‘We have a zero tolerance policy to child pornography.’?—?but what we found while searching through your server is more than 50% child porn…
All your files have been copied and your database has been dumped. (74GB of files and 2.3GB of database)...
The guaranteed solution for your boss would be for him/her to pack one's own meal. This is a time honoured English practice. For instance I believe this is standard at Glyndebourne performances (?)
Trump is throwing plenty of red meat for Republican value voters and fiscal deregulators.
They weren't anti-Trump because of his proposed actions but because they thought he couldn't win.