Detroying all known missile sites and/or the leadership personally. This is roughly what Israel did with Iran - it kicks the can down the road, but builds up hatred.
McCain may well have saved the midterms for the GOP who would otherwise face millions of voters who'd just lost (or were about to lose) their health cover,
I agree. Most Republicans seem unable to appreciate how blue collar their support is, these days.
When we owned a place in Long Island, we used a lovely local lady to help with babysitting the kids. We became friends with her and husband who had been a skilled machinist before his company closed down their US operations and shifted them abroad. He became a sheriff, but it paid substantially less well than his previous job.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, they were Donald Trump voters, and the message of economic nationalism really appealed to them. Bringing jobs back and restricting low-skilled immigration from Mexico and LatAm were the key issues for them.
But they also benefitted hugely from Obamacare. Their son, in his early 20s, was beaten up and left with lingering health issues. Before Obamacare, they ended up mortgaging themselves to the hilt to pay his bills, because these were pre-existing conditions, and they couldn't afford insurance. If Obamacare had simply been repealed, it would would have been an utter disaster for them. I doubt they would have voted Republican again.
Donald Trump doesn't realise it, but John McCain may have saved him.
Thanks to John McCain, the Republicans have dodged a wide bullet.
Back in the days when the Republicans enjoyed overwhelming support among better off Americans (plus White Southerners) they could have repealed it, without hitting their base of supporters, but not now.
Am off to the SW next week and anticipate seeing semi-desert instead of green rolling hills. The recent rain has saved our southern British bacon for the moment, but things are not great here either drought-wise. Another dry winter and we'll be in trouble.
It is surely the East of England which has the lwoest rainfall.
The SW suffers from a shortage of reservoirs to store the rain that falls so is first to impose garden hose pipe bans. But that does not mean they don't have rain.
I meant SW France!
Yes, the view from the window here in SW England is of sunshine and showers and the grass growing about as fast as I can mow it. I understand SW France is as dry as you are expecting.
Are any of the NK interventionists personally willing to go and fight 1m+ NK soldiers on the frozen Chosin reservoir?
I am happy to be a peacenik (albeit one with quite a military interest!) but this is not one for us. We have neither capability nor particular interests in the area. We have other fish to fry.
We should make it clear that, if NK falls, we would be willing to work with China and SK in a humanitarian aid program. But only if asked.
There is a bit of a Korean diaspora here already. about 45 000, half of whom are students.
Indeed the waitress in my favourite sushi bar is a Korean student, and there are several Korean supermarkets and restaurants in Leicester. I quite like Koreans and Korean food, they seem a bit more interested in mixing than some other student communities.
While reunification with the North would present challenges, not least likely infrastructure collapse if war induced, it would go a long way towards sorting South Korea's demographic challenge from very low fertility rates.
Minimal scientific benefit from a single case study.
For it to be meaningful it needs to be a randomised controlled trial, preferably double-blinded.
How does it work for the very rarest illnesses or procedures?
I have a vague awareness that some experimental heart surgeries have to deal with very small sample sizes (in fact I guess they all do, when you first start doing them), with careful statistical rules for discontinuing the procedure if the results to date indicate it's problematic, and obviously there are problems double-blinding heart surgery. But the rarer the condition, the lower the power even the largest studies could attain, and even moderate effect sizes would struggle for statistical significance.
(The hypothetical scenario I was suggesting involved basic research, rather than a clinical trial to seek approval for a purported treatment. Does that make a difference? If all you want to find out to understand the illness a bit more is "Does doing X result in Y for patients with condition Z?" and Z is so rare that we seldom get the opportunity to try X out - in fact by the time we do, we've possibly moved on from wanting to try out X1 to wanting to see the effects of X2 or X3 instead - at what stage do the ethics regulators say "you can't justify your interventions since your research programme simply won't be able to produce a useful evidence base - you will always lack data points, and you can't demonstrate that the X you are trying is likely to have a clinical benefit"?)
There are statistical rules on everything but the regulators are pretty creative where it comes to orphan and ultra orphan diseases (I'm on the board of an orphan company)
From an ethics perspective in ultra orphan, a theoretical rationale for why it might work is a good starting point ("I hope it might cross the blood brain barrier" is not sufficient)
Thanks. And presumably they'd like to see results in an animal model or something first. Does there have to be any realistic hope that the research might actually alleviate the condition in the case of the person undertaking the trial or is it sufficient that the research is investigating a mechanism that is a plausible basis for future, hopefully more useful, interventions?
F1: this'll be in the pre-qualifying article but it's a race tip: No Safety Car is now 1.98 on Betfair. Originally mentioned and tipped at 1.61, the 1.98 will count in the records (if that sounds like cherrypicking, the 5.5 on Vettel to win this time and 26 each way on Raikkonen for pole last time didn't count).
Trump could finally come to an end over cannabis,a legal industry with a current customer base in the US and Canada worth $53 billion.Many of those who work in the industry are naturally libertarian GOP supporters and any moves to impose federal prohibition by Trump means he is attacking the business base of some of his natural supporters.They could be the ones to tear him down.
Trump could finally come to an end over cannabis,a legal industry with a current customer base in the US and Canada worth $53 billion.Many of those who work in the industry are naturally libertarian GOP supporters and any moves to impose federal prohibition by Trump means he is attacking the business base of some of his natural supporters.They could be the ones to tear him down.
What specific tearing-down mechanism do you have in mind?
We'll be living with the damage George Osborne has done for at least a generation.
Nor should that prick Clegg be forgotten for his role in this.
One of several reasons why Cable was the wrong choice too.
I’ve been a long-time Lib/LibDem supporter and was once an activist but I’ve been reflecting and worrying of late. There have been several Coalition chickens which have come home to roost lately, and not just tuition fees. Cutting legal aid, and assistance for tribunals is one that particualarly bothers me, and I seem to remember that there were LibDem ministers in the DoJ, who must have been aware. I’ve also read disturbing reports about a ‘bonfire of regulations’ in Vince’s department which may have contributed to the Grenfell disaster.
So for me Farron, with his ‘differences’ with the past was a good choice, but I’m no means as sure about Vince Cable. I don’t think Jo Swinson has quite the same baggage.
China's the important player here, and we have to ask what they want and what their fears are.
They don't want US troops on their doorstep, which means that North Korea falling and South Korea taking over would be a no-no. They also don't want millions of North Koreans flooding over their borders.
Then there are the economic factors: if NK do something stupid, then China will be seen (rightly in some ways) as their protectors. That might hurt them economically, and that really matters to them at the moment.
But they also realise how unstable NK is, and that the country also threatens them in various ways. They have no fondness for NK.
The solution may be for the US and China to come to a deal. China will deal with NK's leadership, whilst the US protects SK. Once NK's leadership is gone, both sides remove their troops (China from NK, US from SK) and let the unified Korea sort themselves out.
It would raise China's standing internationally, and also make SK less of a competitor: the SK government would have to spend a fortune over decades 'fixing' the north.
It's a case of persuading China, and to a lesser extent the US, that the current situation is unsustainable and bad for business.
I think that the proposed nucleoside treatment has never been used for the condition in a human, or even an animal model of the disease. No physician believes that it would reverse the major brain damage, not even the American professor who proposed it. He never examined the child, nor even read the casenotes, or reviewed the brain imaging. This is not a treatment effective for the condition that Charlie had.
There is a significant chance of a further baby being affected, as this is a mitochondrial disease mutation. Testing on an animal model in order to prepare for treatment from birth for the next child, before the disease advances to the terminal phase, might be a reasonable next approach.
Mitochondrial DNA mutations do lend themselves to another approach, as the DNA is not in the nucleus. That would be to use an embryo with three parents, a maternal ova, paternal sperm and the mitochondria from an egg donor. There is some interest in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18393682
Thanks, this is most informative. Obviously the fact it "is not a treatment effective for the condition" is why it was denied. I was really wondering in what situation the ethics people might go with "he's a goner anyway, but can we learn anything useful from him for future patients, even if it has no benefit to him?" which is what a pure utilitarian might go with. (I am not a big fan of pure utilitarianism.)
China's the important player here, and we have to ask what they want and what their fears are.
They don't want US troops on their doorstep, which means that North Korea falling and South Korea taking over would be a no-no. They also don't want millions of North Koreans flooding over their borders.
Then there are the economic factors: if NK do something stupid, then China will be seen (rightly in some ways) as their protectors. That might hurt them economically, and that really matters to them at the moment.
But they also realise how unstable NK is, and that the country also threatens them in various ways. They have no fondness for NK.
The solution may be for the US and China to come to a deal. China will deal with NK's leadership, whilst the US protects SK. Once NK's leadership is gone, both sides remove their troops (China from NK, US from SK) and let the unified Korea sort themselves out.
It would raise China's standing internationally, and also make SK less of a competitor: the SK government would have to spend a fortune over decades 'fixing' the north.
It's a case of persuading China, and to a lesser extent the US, that the current situation is unsustainable and bad for business.
Persuasive post IMO.
Given its position, agreement that a unified Korea will be non-aligned would help too. Treaties guaranteed the neutrality of Austria and Finland and reassured the Soviet Union. Failure to do so with the Baltic states - the US talked arrogantly of winning the Cold War - damaged relations with Russia for years to come, Putin or no Putin.
Germany only took 25 years to absorb the DDR. Germany's GDP/cap. is 15% higher than the UK. S. Korea might do the same.
"When i started serving on carriers in the 90s the popular view of people not involved in carrier ops was then, as now, that they were obsolete sitting ducks for new wonder weapons. Back then the carrier killing threat was high speed, supercavitating Russian torpedos that turned out not to exist."
Your comment sparked my interest. I had never heard of supercavitating torpedoes, so I did a Wiki search... you say they turned out not to exist but is this not one then?
Mr D, you appear to have mistakenly used the terms 'F1' and 'interesting' in the same sentence!
I have no idea why he bombards us with off topic F1 bollocks.
It is because his anorak is of a different type.
We could always talk about shoes. Plato and I used to have great discussions about the relative merits of slingbacks vs courts. Her favourite, IIRC, was cuban heels or block heels.
If this is as it seems, and not fake news in some way, it's obviously a ridiculously extreme view. But let's not fall into the same trap and assume all black people think all white people are racist.
OTH I think it is well proven that unconscious bias runs deep in all of us, of whatever creed or colour, and it's as well to be self-aware about that.
"When i started serving on carriers in the 90s the popular view of people not involved in carrier ops was then, as now, that they were obsolete sitting ducks for new wonder weapons. Back then the carrier killing threat was high speed, supercavitating Russian torpedos that turned out not to exist."
Your comment sparked my interest. I had never heard of supercavitating torpedoes, so I did a Wiki search... you say they turned out not to exist but is this not one then?
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote. It's hard to engage with a set voters who seem to be living in an alternate reality.
As for the GOP and their support, I think one of the reasons why they wanted to repeal Obamacare so badly was because of their base. It appears that they thought that would really motivate their base to come out in the midterms.
I agree that Trump may well win again in 2020, and it's a crying shame for America. The ironic thing about those in their twitter bios and in Trump rallies proclaiming 'MAGA' is that Trump is doing anything but making America great again. Indeed, it looks as though it's becoming increasingly difficult for the Republicans to pass any major legislation and they have the house, the senate and the White House right now. Perhaps, they have made their coalition too big - certainly, it seems to have made coming to an overall agreement on matters such as healthcare incredibly difficult for them.
As for the culture wars there, I'm glad we don't have a significant set voters as socially conservative as many of those in America are. I don't think I could live in a country where people talked on and on about rights being 'god given' how abortion is murder, how the LGBT community are all immoral and so on. One of the good things about this country is that god doesn't come up in politics very much. Long may that continue.
If this is as it seems, and not fake news in some way, it's obviously a ridiculously extreme view. But let's not fall into the same trap and assume all black people think all white people are racist.
OTH I think it is well proven that unconscious bias runs deep in all of us, of whatever creed or colour, and it's as well to be self-aware about that.
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
If this is as it seems, and not fake news in some way, it's obviously a ridiculously extreme view. But let's not fall into the same trap and assume all black people think all white people are racist.
OTH I think it is well proven that unconscious bias runs deep in all of us, of whatever creed or colour, and it's as well to be self-aware about that.
Who's falling into any trap?
The head of an equality group
One who believes he lives in a "white supremacist world"...
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
I wouldn't say that about Pence. He's very socially conservative, which is how the GOP likes em'. Getting their socially conservative agenda through would be an absolute doddle with him as President. Especially since the kind of chaos Trump produces wouldn't be there anymore.
Are any of the NK interventionists personally willing to go and fight 1m+ NK soldiers on the frozen Chosin reservoir?
The battle was not fought on the reservoir itself, which was frozen only because of once in a century weather conditions, and it is only a sensible place to have a battle if one party is invading Korea from China (which works best if you are Chinese) and the other is opposing the invasion. Subject to that yeah, I'll give it a go.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
Milo's new book "Dangerous" is great. I'll do a review for PB when I get some time. Highly recommended.
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote.
This may be true of his core, but there are a lot of Republicans out there - probably close to half his presidential vote - who didn't like him but held their noses and voted for him because he was the Republican nominee and because they disliked Hillary even more. If they stay home and a few of them flip then House Republicans are going to have a bad day.
The Senate's a bit trickier because there are only 2 obvious Dem pickup opportunities, compared to lots of Dems defending states that Trump won by seriously big margins.
I see the German authorities are at the ridiculous limbo dancing again. Yesterday it was talking about it being a robbery then possibly a "hate" attack and deliberately being vague about the type of weapon used despite members of the public giving their accounts to the news media making it crystal clear what went on ie not a bloke with a small knife trying to hold up a supermarket for cash. Now,
"He was known as an Islamist but not a jihadist," police spokesman Andy Grote said, noting that the suspect also suffered from "psychological" issues.
They also said they will never deport him because he has no id papers despite them knowing where he comes come.
I think that the proposed nucleoside treatment has never been used for the condition in a human, or even an animal model of the disease. No physician believes that it would reverse the major brain damage, not even the American professor who proposed it. He never examined the child, nor even read the casenotes, or reviewed the brain imaging. This is not a treatment effective for the condition that Charlie had.
There is a significant chance of a further baby being affected, as this is a mitochondrial disease mutation. Testing on an animal model in order to prepare for treatment from birth for the next child, before the disease advances to the terminal phase, might be a reasonable next approach.
Mitochondrial DNA mutations do lend themselves to another approach, as the DNA is not in the nucleus. That would be to use an embryo with three parents, a maternal ova, paternal sperm and the mitochondria from an egg donor. There is some interest in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18393682
Thanks, this is most informative. Obviously the fact it "is not a treatment effective for the condition" is why it was denied. I was really wondering in what situation the ethics people might go with "he's a goner anyway, but can we learn anything useful from him for future patients, even if it has no benefit to him?" which is what a pure utilitarian might go with. (I am not a big fan of pure utilitarianism.)
The legal duty of both professionals and parents is to act in the interest of the particular child, not to advance the cause of science. When this is not agreed then the courts get involved. I am less familiar with the rules in other countries, such as America, but believe the principle is the same.
Cost rightly did not come into this legal case, but perhaps should at least get passing mention, A level 3 Paediatric Intensive care bed costs about £2000 per day, so in the six months of this case, about £350 000. There is also the opportunity cost. Paeds intensive care beds are scarce, so while this one was not in use, other children were not treated. Those who watched the excellent #Hospital series recently from St Mary's on BBC2 will recall the dilemmas over which surgery to cancel when an ICU bed was not available. Only GOSH would know of these cases. These are the dilemmas of medical management.
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote.
This may be true of his core, but there are a lot of Republicans out there - probably close to half his presidential vote - who didn't like him but held their noses and voted for him because he was the Republican nominee and because they disliked Hillary even more. If they stay home and a few of them flip then House Republicans are going to have a bad day.
The Senate's a bit trickier because there are only 2 obvious Dem pickup opportunities, compared to lots of Dems defending states that Trump won by seriously big margins.
I'm doubtful that it's as much as half his presidential vote having those kind of doubts/misgivings about him. He's getting an very high approval from Republican voters right now - although the last I recall seeing his overall approval ratings they had dipped in some cases to sub 40, so it may have gone down a bit with them. But it seems like 80%+ republicans approve of the job he is doing right now. The reason why his approvals are so low is because so many Dems give him a negative approval rating.
I feel the Democrats need to win the Senate more than they do the House - but I agree that it's going to be very difficult for them. If they do manage to do well it's likely to only be in the House.
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
I see potential home office minister diane has been defending rioters who attacked the police.
A friend of mine is a Corbynite leftie who lives in Dalston... "not legitimate protestors, feral troublemakers armed w cans of petrol attacking police officers at will" was his take
I see potential home office minister diane has been defending rioters who attacked the police.
A friend of mine is a Corbynite leftie who lives in Dalston... "not legitimate protestors, feral troublemakers armed w cans of petrol attacking police officers at will" was his take
He might be right. There are undoubtedly rentacrowd troublemakers out there.
I was surprised, and relieved, that things didn't escalate seriously after Grenfell tbh... a genuine grievance, hot weather, SWP stirring it up, rentamob still around, post election frustrations felt by some, etc.
Thankfully it was all kept under (relative) control. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't due some excellent policing behind the scenes, in which case - well done the Met!
China's the important player here, and we have to ask what they want and what their fears are.
They don't want US troops on their doorstep, which means that North Korea falling and South Korea taking over would be a no-no. They also don't want millions of North Koreans flooding over their borders.
Then there are the economic factors: if NK do something stupid, then China will be seen (rightly in some ways) as their protectors. That might hurt them economically, and that really matters to them at the moment.
But they also realise how unstable NK is, and that the country also threatens them in various ways. They have no fondness for NK.
The solution may be for the US and China to come to a deal. China will deal with NK's leadership, whilst the US protects SK. Once NK's leadership is gone, both sides remove their troops (China from NK, US from SK) and let the unified Korea sort themselves out.
It would raise China's standing internationally, and also make SK less of a competitor: the SK government would have to spend a fortune over decades 'fixing' the north.
It's a case of persuading China, and to a lesser extent the US, that the current situation is unsustainable and bad for business.
Good post. A couple of additions to it. China has a generally good relationship with South Korea, not least because both are wary/dismissive of Japan. China would have no problem at all with the whole peninsula run from Soeul. China is very conscious of being next to a powder keg when they have limited influence to prevent it going off. The nightmare scenario for them is North Korea implodes and the Americans step into the chaos. They will tolerate the status quo to avoid that.
(Most Chinese think North Korea is a joke. Mention Korea and they will say "Comrade!" and then laugh. That once popular salutation is now used exclusively on the gay community).
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
I think this underestinates Americans' attachment to the office - removing the President is not at all like removing a British party leader. The closest parallel is the storm over the King in the 1930s marriyng Mrs Simpson. Lots of people felt he was behaving disreputably, but it took tremendous upheaval before he was finally pushed out - and even then it was voluntary.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote. It's hard to engage with a set voters who seem to be living in an alternate reality.
As for the GOP and their support, I think one of the reasons why they wanted to repeal Obamacare so badly was because of their base. It appears that they thought that would really motivate their base to come out in the midterms.
I agree that Trump may well win again in 2020, and it's a crying shame for America. The ironic thing about those in their twitter bios and in Trump rallies proclaiming 'MAGA' is that Trump is doing anything but making America great again. Indeed, it looks as though it's becoming increasingly difficult for the Republicans to pass any major legislation and they have the house, the senate and the White House right now. Perhaps, they have made their coalition too big - certainly, it seems to have made coming to an overall agreement.
The GOP's coalition is narrow not wide. White people without college degrees mainly in rural and small town america,this is more than 40% of the electorate so it is a large base if not diverse.
It is precisely because these people will be hurt the most that it is hard for them to come up with a replacement for healthcare, the base hated Obamacare but liked the Affordable Care Act ( same thing). It is no surprise McCain says he will vote against the bill in it's current form, Arizona is a medicaid expansion state.
I'm doubtful that it's as much as half his presidential vote having those kind of doubts/misgivings about him. He's getting an very high approval from Republican voters right now - although the last I recall seeing his overall approval ratings they had dipped in some cases to sub 40, so it may have gone down a bit with them. But it seems like 80%+ republicans approve of the job he is doing right now. The reason why his approvals are so low is because so many Dems give him a negative approval rating.
I feel the Democrats need to win the Senate more than they do the House - but I agree that it's going to be very difficult for them. If they do manage to do well it's likely to only be in the House.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
His tweet wasn't "a little provocative" ffs.. If it'd been written by a white British man the police would have already paid a visit.
Thanks, this is most informative. Obviously the fact it "is not a treatment effective for the condition" is why it was denied. I was really wondering in what situation the ethics people might go with "he's a goner anyway, but can we learn anything useful from him for future patients, even if it has no benefit to him?" which is what a pure utilitarian might go with. (I am not a big fan of pure utilitarianism.)
That's not uncommon where the patient can be consulted - when I worked for pharma, I was impressed at the frequent reports of terminally ill patients consenting to treatment that was very unlikely to help them, so as to help others.
I suppose consent might be given on a baby's behalf if it was felt the treatment was neutral and the baby was not suffering in other ways - not the case here.
The legal duty of both professionals and parents is to act in the interest of the particular child, not to advance the cause of science. When this is not agreed then the courts get involved. I am less familiar with the rules in other countries, such as America, but believe the principle is the same.
This is as I feel it should be, but doesn't strike me as the only coherent or defensible position. I know if I had a grisly terminal condition, I'd be all up for letting medical researchers do whatever they wanted to me - even if it were actively harmful, I'd be past the point of caring, provided there was a genuine shot at deepening understanding in a way that may help others later. There's something very redemptively attractive about finding a kind of meaning and purpose to a random and unpleasant death.
The utilitarian position may be that "the greater good" justifies - even morally obligates - experimentation with no personal benefit on those whose life has wound to the end of the course, but it is the obligatory character that I object to. Someone who goes down that route may be regarded as virtuous but is surely going beyond the call of moral duty. With a child who cannot make that decision for themselves, issues of consent are murkier.
Edit: Thanks to NickP for his very similar and near-simultaneous post.
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote.
This may be true of his core, but there are a lot of Republicans out there - probably close to half his presidential vote - who didn't like him but held their noses and voted for him because he was the Republican nominee and because they disliked Hillary even more. If they stay home and a few of them flip then House Republicans are going to have a bad day.
The Senate's a bit trickier because there are only 2 obvious Dem pickup opportunities, compared to lots of Dems defending states that Trump won by seriously big margins.
I'm doubtful that it's as much as half his presidential vote having those kind of doubts/misgivings about him. He's getting an very high approval from Republican voters right now - although the last I recall seeing his overall approval ratings they had dipped in some cases to sub 40, so it may have gone down a bit with them. But it seems like 80%+ republicans approve of the job he is doing right now. The reason why his approvals are so low is because so many Dems give him a negative approval rating.
I feel the Democrats need to win the Senate more than they do the House - but I agree that it's going to be very difficult for them. If they do manage to do well it's likely to only be in the House.
Donald Trump does not have particularly good approval ratings from Republicans. In last weeks Reuters poll, 73.9% of Republicans approved, against disapproval of 23%. That's really not a good result.
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
I think this underestinates Americans' attachment to the office - removing the President is not at all like removing a British party leader. The closest parallel is the storm over the King in the 1930s marriyng Mrs Simpson. Lots of people felt he was behaving disreputably, but it took tremendous upheaval before he was finally pushed out - and even then it was voluntary.
Fair point Nick, but the US does have a constitutional route to remove a president. I am not an expert (far from it) but I am not sure there is any constitutional way to force a British monarch out; they have to abdicate.
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
I think this underestinates Americans' attachment to the office - removing the President is not at all like removing a British party leader. The closest parallel is the storm over the King in the 1930s marriyng Mrs Simpson. Lots of people felt he was behaving disreputably, but it took tremendous upheaval before he was finally pushed out - and even then it was voluntary.
Fair point Nick, but the US does have a constitutional route to remove a president. I am not an expert (far from it) but I am not sure there is any constitutional way to force a British monarch out; they have to abdicate.
@foxinsoxuk I agree with all of what you've said It's probably one of the more difficult debates to have on PB, as well as generally. Will give that link a read - my mum and on occasion my grandparents have discussed with me their own experiences of racism.
OT, but have you seen Matthew Paris' article in The Times today? It's great.
@NickPalmer Thanks. If I wasn't clear in my previous post the 'overall' bit was a reference to individual polls I'd seen with his 'overall' rating from all political groups. Was trying to distinguish between his overall rating from both Dems/Republicans/Independents and his approval from just Republicans. But looking at that link it does seem he stopped getting sub 40 scores in polls fairly recently.
...The bet is on the process proceeding to a full and successful conclusion, not simply the attempt being made. That remains a long shot, particularly within any particular calendar year....
PP quote " He will be deemed to be impeached when the House of Representatives pass a vote for impeachment".
This is why I'm not touching "impeachment" bets with a bargepole. The word "impeachment" means something like "trial" or "investigation", not "verdict" nor "conviction". Clinton was impeached but not convicted and served two full terms.
Although PB takes time to laud the alt-right ad nauseam, it rarely discusses minutae like the conditions under which a bet would be settled, and in this case it's pretty important.
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote. It's hard to engage with a set voters who seem to be living in an alternate reality.
As for the GOP and their support, I think one of the reasons why they wanted to repeal Obamacare so badly was because of their base. It appears that they thought that would really motivate their base to come out in the midterms.
I agree that Trump may well win again in 2020, and it's a crying shame for America. The ironic thing about those in their twitter bios and in Trump rallies proclaiming 'MAGA' is that Trump is doing anything but making America great again. Indeed, it looks as though it's becoming increasingly difficult for the Republicans to pass any major legislation and they have the house, the senate and the White House right now. Perhaps, they have made their coalition too big - certainly, it seems to have made coming to an overall agreement.
The GOP's coalition is narrow not wide. White people without college degrees mainly in rural and small town america,this is more than 40% of the electorate so it is a large base if not diverse.
It is precisely because these people will be hurt the most that it is hard for them to come up with a replacement for healthcare, the base hated Obamacare but liked the Affordable Care Act ( same thing). It is no surprise McCain says he will vote against the bill in it's current form, Arizona is a medicaid expansion state.
Re the coalition, it was more in regard to views that I was referring to than demographics. The GOP coalition now includes moderate Republicans like Susan Collins as well as very, very right wing types like Ted Cruz. That's a pretty wide coalition of views in Congress and it's difficult to see how such groups coming from such different places can agree to one plan on healthcare etc.
...The bet is on the process proceeding to a full and successful conclusion, not simply the attempt being made. That remains a long shot, particularly within any particular calendar year....
PP quote " He will be deemed to be impeached when the House of Representatives pass a vote for impeachment".
This is why I'm not touching "impeachment" bets with a bargepole. The word "impeachment" means something like "trial" or "investigation", not "verdict" nor "conviction". Clinton was impeached but not convicted and served two full terms.
Although PB takes time to laud the alt-right ad nauseam, it rarely discusses minutae like the conditions under which a bet would be settled, and in this case it's pretty important.
If I have understood correctly, the House passing a vote for Impeachment satisfies the bet.
The next stage is the Senate try him and it needs a 2/3 Senate majority to find him guilty, but that part is not required to satisfy the bet. (Clinton was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Sentate iirc).
This is why I'm not touching "impeachment" bets with a bargepole. The word "impeachment" means something like "trial" or "investigation", not "verdict" nor "conviction". Clinton was impeached but not convicted and served two full terms.
Although PB takes time to laud the alt-right ad nauseam, it rarely discusses minutae like the conditions under which a bet would be settled, and in this case it's pretty important.
If I have understood correctly, the House passing a vote for Impeachment satisfies the bet.
The next stage is the Senate try him and it needs a 2/3 Senate majority to find him guilty, but that part is not required to satisfy the bet. (Clinton was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Sentate iirc).
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
Foxy is right though Isam. It was an intelligent, well-reasoned post, not sure what your issue is tbh.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
Foxy is right though Isam. It was an intelligent, well-reasoned post, not sure what your issue is tbh.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
Foxy is right though Isam. It was an intelligent, well-reasoned post, not sure what your issue is tbh.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
Foxy is right though Isam. It was an intelligent, well-reasoned post, not sure what your issue is tbh.
You're one of them!!
Proud to be!
Soon they'll ban us from commenting on each other's posts!
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
From a purely party-political point of view, which is how most PB Tories seem to think, you are no doubt right.
However, from the point of view of the average American elector, let alone the rest of the world, it would be helpful if they started think more long-term.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
Foxy is right though Isam. It was an intelligent, well-reasoned post, not sure what your issue is tbh.
You're one of them!!
Proud to be!
Soon they'll ban us from commenting on each other's posts!
That would cut the traffic somewhat, if we were only allowed to comment on the thread header.
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
From a purely party-political point of view, which is how most PB Tories seem to think, you are no doubt right.
However, from the point of view of the average American elector, let alone the rest of the world, it would be helpful if they started think more long-term.
I do hope you're not accusing me of being a PB Tory - abuse I can take, but that would be another level altogether!
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke taught me was to be less uncomfortable with being called a racist. Too often (and generally by the left) this is used as a way of shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. It is why I don't think that it is a useful way of conducting debate on PB.
Dr Burke is a West Indian Psychiatrist (He is originally Jamaican) he was very unusual in London, despite there being an over representation of British afro-caribeans in psychiatric care. On my first day I presented a case history that I had taken of a youngster who was referred in following a significant incident. He listened to my analysis, including a detailed history of childhood, sexual issues, police issues etc. Psychiatric examination is very intimate and detailed. Dr Burke asked me "what experience of racism has he had?". I replied "I didn't ask that". He continued "Don't you think that it might be relevant to his condition?". I sheepishly nodded.
Following on from that, I routinely asked about the experience of racism (amongst other things including child sex abuse - psychiatry is not easy for the easily embarrassed!). Despite having lived in South London for years, and even flatsharing with a West Indian bloke, I learned a great deal. There is none so blind as the willfully blind,
Agreed - I am completely baffled why they don't ditch him now; they could have Pence delivering a strong right-wing GOP programme.
Sheer difficulty of managing it without extensive political bloodletting which they would have no guarantee of coming out on top of, I imagine, plus people will always look for another way out.
...The bet is on the process proceeding to a full and successful conclusion, not simply the attempt being made. That remains a long shot, particularly within any particular calendar year....
PP quote " He will be deemed to be impeached when the House of Representatives pass a vote for impeachment".
This is why I'm not touching "impeachment" bets with a bargepole. The word "impeachment" means something like "trial" or "investigation", not "verdict" nor "conviction". Clinton was impeached but not convicted and served two full terms.
Although PB takes time to laud the alt-right ad nauseam, it rarely discusses minutae like the conditions under which a bet would be settled, and in this case it's pretty important.
I don't think PB is, collectively, so laudatory of the alt-right as this post suggests. Moreover I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread where impeachment bets were discussed (and there've been a few of them), without someone chiming in to talk about the conditions under which it was settled. (Though sometimes the point is raised surprisingly late in the discussion!)
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke
Dr Burke is a West Indian Psychiatrist (He is originally Jamaican) he was very unusual in London, despite there being an over representation of British afro-caribeans in psychiatric care. On my first day I presented a case history that I had taken of a youngster who was referred in following a significant incident. He listened to my analysis, including a detailed history of childhood, sexual issues, police issues etc. Psychiatric examination is very intimate and detailed. Dr Burke asked me "what experience of racism has he had?". I replied "I didn't ask that". He continued "Don't you think that it might be relevant to his condition?". I sheepishly nodded.
Following on from that, I routinely asked about the experience of racism (amongst other things including child sex abuse - psychiatry is not easy for the easily embarrassed!). Despite having lived in South London for years, and even flatsharing with a West Indian bloke, I learned a great deal. There is none so blind as the willfully blind,
If one is accused of being a racist, both the accuser and the accused usually take it as an accusation that one is an evil person, rather than an accusation that one is being unconsciously biased. That's why so many people resent the accusation.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
The
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke taught me was to be less uncomfortable with being called a racist. Too often (and generally by the left) this is used as a way of shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. It is why I don't think that it is a useful way of conducting debate on PB.
Dr Burke is a West Indian Psychiatrist (He is originally Jamaican) he was very unusual in London, despite there being an over representation of British afro-caribeans in psychiatric care. On my first day I presented a case history that I had taken of a youngster who was referred in following a significant incident. He listened to my analysis, including a detailed history of childhood, sexual issues, police issues etc. Psychiatric examination is very intimate and detailed. Dr Burke asked me "what experience of racism has he had?". I replied "I didn't ask that". He continued "Don't you think that it might be relevant to his condition?". I sheepishly nodded.
Following on from that, I routinely asked about the experience of racism (amongst other things including child sex abuse - psychiatry is not easy for the easily embarrassed!). Despite having lived in South London for years, and even flatsharing with a West Indian bloke, I learned a great deal. There is none so blind as the willfully blind,
All white people are racist. Non whites obviously treat all folk the same
Think it's difficult to tell how the midterms will go. Even if Obamacare had been repealed, I still think progress for the Democrats would have been hard. Trump's voters are essentially like a cult, much like Corbyn's supporters are. They are unlikely to ever hold him accountable for anything. A lot of the time they appear to be living in an alternative reality - e.g. 50% of them believe that Trump won the popular vote.
This may be true of his core, but there are a lot of Republicans out there - probably close to half his presidential vote - who didn't like him but held their noses and voted for him because he was the Republican nominee and because they disliked Hillary even more. If they stay home and a few of them flip then House Republicans are going to have a bad day.
The Senate's a bit trickier because there are only 2 obvious Dem pickup opportunities, compared to lots of Dems defending states that Trump won by seriously big margins.
I'm doubtful that it's as much as half his presidential vote having those kind of doubts/misgivings about him. He's getting an very high approval from Republican voters right now - although the last I recall seeing his overall approval ratings they had dipped in some cases to sub 40, so it may have gone down a bit with them. But it seems like 80%+ republicans approve of the job he is doing right now. The reason why his approvals are so low is because so many Dems give him a negative approval rating.
I feel the Democrats need to win the Senate more than they do the House - but I agree that it's going to be very difficult for them. If they do manage to do well it's likely to only be in the House.
Donald Trump does not have particularly good approval ratings from Republicans. In last weeks Reuters poll, 73.9% of Republicans approved, against disapproval of 23%. That's really not a good result.
There is also the attrition effect. As American pollsters base party affiliation on self reported rather than previous vote, as trump gets more unpopular less people identify as Republican which means Trump's popularity amongst Republicans stays steady (or even improves).
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies. The
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke taught me was to be less uncomfortable with being called a racist. Too often (and generally by the left) this is used as a way of shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. It is why I don't think that it is a useful way of conducting debate on PB.
Dr Burke is a West Indian Psychiatrist (He is originally Jamaican) he was very unusual in London, despite there being an over representation of British afro-caribeans in psychiatric care. On my first day I presented a case history that I had taken of a youngster who was referred in following a significant incident. He listened to my analysis, including a detailed history of childhood, sexual issues, police issues etc. Psychiatric examination is very intimate and detailed. Dr Burke asked me "what experience of racism has he had?". I replied "I didn't ask that". He continued "Don't you think that it might be relevant to his condition?". I sheepishly nodded.
Following on from that, I routinely asked about the experience of racism (amongst other things including child sex abuse - psychiatry is not easy for the easily embarrassed!). Despite having lived in South London for years, and even flatsharing with a West Indian bloke, I learned a great deal. There is none so blind as the willfully blind,
All white people are racist. Non whites obviously treat all folk the same
I believe we are all racist regardless of colour, its how you deal with them that matters. It is quite normal to be apprehensive of people who are different until you unferstand those differences.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
The
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke taught me was to be less uncomfortable with being called a racist. Too often (and generally by the left) this is used as a way of shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. It is why I don't think that it is a useful way of conducting debate on PB.
Dr Burke is a West
All white people are racist. Non whites obviously treat all folk the same
I would disagree. While I think all white people are racist to a greater or lesser degree, I would say that the same applies to all other ethnic groups. The harm that it does does vary though, depending on the power relationships that the racism is experienced via. I would say the white girls of Rotherham were victims of racism too, but experienced differently because of the different context.
I would suggest that the WWC experience of "reversed racism" differs from my own, for similar reasons. I am a wealthy professional, so am in a protected position relative to a blue collar worker. Race and class are intertwined as issues, but do feed off each other.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
You're correct there. I'm exactly like them. One day I'll post a gallery of all the riots I've been on.
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
For any others wondering what an SJW is:
"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.[5]
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
The
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke taught me was to be less uncomfortable with being called a racist. Too often (and generally by the left) this is used as a way of shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. It is why I don't think that it is a useful way of conducting debate on PB.
Dr Burke is a West
All white people are racist. Non whites obviously treat all folk the same
I would disagree. While I think all white people are racist to a greater or lesser degree, I would say that the same applies to all other ethnic groups. The harm that it does does vary though, depending on the power relationships that the racism is experienced via. I would say the white girls of Rotherham were victims of racism too, but experienced differently because of the different context.
I would suggest that the WWC experience of "reversed racism" differs from my own, for similar reasons. I am a wealthy professional, so am in a protected position relative to a blue collar worker. Race and class are intertwined as issues, but do feed off each other.
Mistaking class prejudice for racism is a mistake that plenty of do gooders have made
Comments
Nor should that prick Clegg be forgotten for his role in this.
Back in the days when the Republicans enjoyed overwhelming support among better off Americans (plus White Southerners) they could have repealed it, without hitting their base of supporters, but not now.
Still a tenth faster than Stroll, though.
I've got a feeling The Donald will do the full 8 years in the end!
Edited extra bit: now laid, so flat or green either way. He was 5.5 yesterday, backed a little each way.
Indeed the waitress in my favourite sushi bar is a Korean student, and there are several Korean supermarkets and restaurants in Leicester. I quite like Koreans and Korean food, they seem a bit more interested in mixing than some other student communities.
While reunification with the North would present challenges, not least likely infrastructure collapse if war induced, it would go a long way towards sorting South Korea's demographic challenge from very low fertility rates.
No Safety Car is now 1.98 on Betfair. Originally mentioned and tipped at 1.61, the 1.98 will count in the records (if that sounds like cherrypicking, the 5.5 on Vettel to win this time and 26 each way on Raikkonen for pole last time didn't count).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40759887
That practice session has set up qualifying very nicely.
https://twitter.com/RichardOsley/status/890962566759030784
So for me Farron, with his ‘differences’ with the past was a good choice, but I’m no means as sure about Vince Cable. I don’t think Jo Swinson has quite the same baggage.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/hungary-pre-qualifying-2017.html
Germany only took 25 years to absorb the DDR. Germany's GDP/cap. is 15% higher than the UK. S. Korea might do the same.
"When i started serving on carriers in the 90s the popular view of people not involved in carrier ops was then, as now, that they were obsolete sitting ducks for new wonder weapons. Back then the carrier killing threat was high speed, supercavitating Russian torpedos that turned out not to exist."
Your comment sparked my interest. I had never heard of supercavitating torpedoes, so I did a Wiki search... you say they turned out not to exist but is this not one then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
We could always talk about shoes. Plato and I used to have great discussions about the relative merits of slingbacks vs courts. Her favourite, IIRC, was cuban heels or block heels.
If this is as it seems, and not fake news in some way, it's obviously a ridiculously extreme view. But let's not fall into the same trap and assume all black people think all white people are racist.
OTH I think it is well proven that unconscious bias runs deep in all of us, of whatever creed or colour, and it's as well to be self-aware about that.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/891252649554833409
As for the GOP and their support, I think one of the reasons why they wanted to repeal Obamacare so badly was because of their base. It appears that they thought that would really motivate their base to come out in the midterms.
I agree that Trump may well win again in 2020, and it's a crying shame for America. The ironic thing about those in their twitter bios and in Trump rallies proclaiming 'MAGA' is that Trump is doing anything but making America great again. Indeed, it looks as though it's becoming increasingly difficult for the Republicans to pass any major legislation and they have the house, the senate and the White House right now. Perhaps, they have made their coalition too big - certainly, it seems to have made coming to an overall agreement on matters such as healthcare incredibly difficult for them.
As for the culture wars there, I'm glad we don't have a significant set voters as socially conservative as many of those in America are. I don't think I could live in a country where people talked on and on about rights being 'god given' how abortion is murder, how the LGBT community are all immoral and so on. One of the good things about this country is that god doesn't come up in politics very much. Long may that continue.
The head of an equality group
Tick tick.
The question is not whether we should act, or when we should act, but how. Where is the UN in all this? Isn't that exactly what it's for.
It is simple enough. If Trump goes rogue on the Republicans and the Trump Party sets up in the Whitehouse then the Republicans will bring him down. They did not go to all this trouble to win an election after which their policies are sidelined by their own leader.
I have always suspected that the Republicans used Trump as a Trojan to get to the Whitehouse and then they would ditch him and install Pence - a man who appears to have no decision making ability of his own and would do as he was told.
I am surprised that they have not ditched Trump yet.
https://www.varsity.co.uk/features/12862
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Highly recommended.
The Senate's a bit trickier because there are only 2 obvious Dem pickup opportunities, compared to lots of Dems defending states that Trump won by seriously big margins.
"He was known as an Islamist but not a jihadist," police spokesman Andy Grote said, noting that the suspect also suffered from "psychological" issues.
They also said they will never deport him because he has no id papers despite them knowing where he comes come.
Mr. Ace, this is a betting website, you silly sausage.
Cost rightly did not come into this legal case, but perhaps should at least get passing mention, A level 3 Paediatric Intensive care bed costs about £2000 per day, so in the six months of this case, about £350 000. There is also the opportunity cost. Paeds intensive care beds are scarce, so while this one was not in use, other children were not treated. Those who watched the excellent #Hospital series recently from St Mary's on BBC2 will recall the dilemmas over which surgery to cancel when an ICU bed was not available. Only GOSH would know of these cases. These are the dilemmas of medical management.
Anyway, I must be off. Qualifying could be rather tasty.
I feel the Democrats need to win the Senate more than they do the House - but I agree that it's going to be very difficult for them. If they do manage to do well it's likely to only be in the House.
Perversely therefore, maybe the Dems should make a lot of noise but take little action and keep an ineffective Trump in office until 2020.
I was surprised, and relieved, that things didn't escalate seriously after Grenfell tbh... a genuine grievance, hot weather, SWP stirring it up, rentamob still around, post election frustrations felt by some, etc.
Thankfully it was all kept under (relative) control. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't due some excellent policing behind the scenes, in which case - well done the Met!
(Most Chinese think North Korea is a joke. Mention Korea and they will say "Comrade!" and then laugh. That once popular salutation is now used exclusively on the gay community).
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/extent-conflict-between-being-black-and-being-british-cautionary-tale
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers. As a white middle class youngster, he took me through the experience of racism experienced by his patients in South London. It was an eyeopener in how racism had impacted on their lives, and on their psychopathology. I think things have improved over the years since, but the fundamental point is unchanged. We can only overcome and mitigate for our predjudices by acknowledging criticism of them as valid. He was a little confrontational in style, but by confronting me with my predudices he changed my world view for the better.
It is precisely because these people will be hurt the most that it is hard for them to come up with a replacement for healthcare, the base hated Obamacare but liked the Affordable Care Act ( same thing). It is no surprise McCain says he will vote against the bill in it's current form, Arizona is a medicaid expansion state.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
I suppose consent might be given on a baby's behalf if it was felt the treatment was neutral and the baby was not suffering in other ways - not the case here.
The utilitarian position may be that "the greater good" justifies - even morally obligates - experimentation with no personal benefit on those whose life has wound to the end of the course, but it is the obligatory character that I object to. Someone who goes down that route may be regarded as virtuous but is surely going beyond the call of moral duty. With a child who cannot make that decision for themselves, issues of consent are murkier.
Edit: Thanks to NickP for his very similar and near-simultaneous post.
If you look at Bush Sr (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx), you see his net approval from Republicans got down to +50 on only one occasion in four years. That's the level Trump is at right now. Of course, Trump may recover, but right now it doesn't look that good for him.
OT, but have you seen Matthew Paris' article in The Times today? It's great.
@NickPalmer Thanks. If I wasn't clear in my previous post the 'overall' bit was a reference to individual polls I'd seen with his 'overall' rating from all political groups. Was trying to distinguish between his overall rating from both Dems/Republicans/Independents and his approval from just Republicans. But looking at that link it does seem he stopped getting sub 40 scores in polls fairly recently.
@rcs1000 Ah, interesting. I followed his poll ratings quite a bit up until late last month, and at that time he was still 80%+ with Republicans, like in this poll https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/23/politics/trump-approval-nbc-wsj-poll/index.html it seems like on the last month his approval among Republicans has declined especially.
Although PB takes time to laud the alt-right ad nauseam, it rarely discusses minutae like the conditions under which a bet would be settled, and in this case it's pretty important.
The next stage is the Senate try him and it needs a 2/3 Senate majority to find him guilty, but that part is not required to satisfy the bet. (Clinton was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Sentate iirc).
Nice qualifying result. Mildly surprised Red Bull didn't do a little better.
However, from the point of view of the average American elector, let alone the rest of the world, it would be helpful if they started think more long-term.
Dr Burke is a West Indian Psychiatrist (He is originally Jamaican) he was very unusual in London, despite there being an over representation of British afro-caribeans in psychiatric care. On my first day I presented a case history that I had taken of a youngster who was referred in following a significant incident. He listened to my analysis, including a detailed history of childhood, sexual issues, police issues etc. Psychiatric examination is very intimate and detailed. Dr Burke asked me "what experience of racism has he had?". I replied "I didn't ask that". He continued "Don't you think that it might be relevant to his condition?". I sheepishly nodded.
Following on from that, I routinely asked about the experience of racism (amongst other things including child sex abuse - psychiatry is not easy for the easily embarrassed!). Despite having lived in South London for years, and even flatsharing with a West Indian bloke, I learned a great deal. There is none so blind as the willfully blind,
Sheer difficulty of managing it without extensive political bloodletting which they would have no guarantee of coming out on top of, I imagine, plus people will always look for another way out.
It's Cambridge - what do you expect.
A hideous mixture of spies traitors, SJWs and grievance whores.
So they are the left wing answer to yourself then, given your many alt-right sympathies.
The
But right now I'm too busy watching the cricket on a 55" tv I looted from Currys in a pro-Ann Coulter riot I organised last month.
SA all out for 175! Woohoo!
Riots or no riots, SJWs and alt-righters both unpleasant groups with extreme views. While their are legit criticisms of SJWs, a great many of them don't come from Breitbart, Trump/Milo sympathising types.
It is easy for a white person to deny the institutional racism that I have seen. This fellow does seem to have been a little provocative in his tweet, but twitter does not leave much potential for nuance!
This is a perhaps more in depth discussion on the subject:
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/extent-conflict-between-being-black-and-being-british-cautionary-tale
Dr Aggrey Burke was one of the finest and inspiring of my teachers.
Wind your neck in you excuse making racist!
One thing that Dr Burke taught me was to be less uncomfortable with being called a racist. Too often (and generally by the left) this is used as a way of shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. It is why I don't think that it is a useful way of conducting debate on PB.
Dr Burke is a West Indian Psychiatrist (He is originally Jamaican) he was very unusual in London, despite there being an over representation of British afro-caribeans in psychiatric care. On my first day I presented a case history that I had taken of a youngster who was referred in following a significant incident. He listened to my analysis, including a detailed history of childhood, sexual issues, police issues etc. Psychiatric examination is very intimate and detailed. Dr Burke asked me "what experience of racism has he had?". I replied "I didn't ask that". He continued "Don't you think that it might be relevant to his condition?". I sheepishly nodded.
Following on from that, I routinely asked about the experience of racism (amongst other things including child sex abuse - psychiatry is not easy for the easily embarrassed!). Despite having lived in South London for years, and even flatsharing with a West Indian bloke, I learned a great deal. There is none so blind as the willfully blind,
All white people are racist. Non whites obviously treat all folk the same
I believe we are all racist regardless of colour, its how you deal with them that matters. It is quite normal to be apprehensive of people who are different until you unferstand those differences.
I would suggest that the WWC experience of "reversed racism" differs from my own, for similar reasons. I am a wealthy professional, so am in a protected position relative to a blue collar worker. Race and class are intertwined as issues, but do feed off each other.
"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.[5]