Ms. Apocalypse, as per May, probably no-win for Macron. Get along with Trump and people boo-hiss, don't get along with him and you don't advance the national interest whatsoever.
I agree that it’s not a win, but I think the main reason for that is because of something the article mentions - that for all the bromancing, Macron hasn’t really convinced Trump to move on the issues.
These kinds of bromances with Trump only really work if you can go back and say ‘well here’s what I’ve done.’ Other than impress establishment Republican and Democrats, Macron can’t go back to France and say he’s convinced Trump to shift on issues. Tony Blair also impressed establishment Republicans and Democrats....that didn’t do anything for his legacy in the end.
Have to say, I found it faintly hilarious that Sopel was gushing about Macron's masterclass, including being touchy-feely. Can't quite recall that being said when Trump held May's hand.
Have to say, I found it faintly hilarious that Sopel was gushing about Macron's masterclass, including being touchy-feely. Can't quite recall that being said when Trump held May's hand.
He certainly is France's answer to Blair. Sucking up to an undesirable US President is all part of the package.
"The President is a cross-eyed Texan warmonger, unelected, inarticulate, who epitomises the arrogance of American foreign policy." - Boris Johnson (attributed) in The Spectator, 2003.
Ms. Apocalypse, et a., bear in mind the alternatives to Macron were the FN, the far left, and an idiot who really should've stepped down but preferred to humiliate himself in the ballot box instead.
"Republican Debbie Lesko won the House special election in Arizona Tuesday night, holding off a closer-than-expected Democratic challenge in a district that President Donald Trump won by 21 points in 2016.
Lesko had 53 percent of the vote when The Associated Press called the race an hour after the polls closed, with over 155,000 early votes tallied. Democrat Hiral Tipirneni had 47 percent of the vote."
I assume I missed discussion before - something for both sides in the result, I think.
Just pleased (having not stayed up - or got up early, it's about the most annoying possible time) the Dems never looked like winning
If the DEMs pull back 15 points on the Republicans across the country should Trump expect to be dealing with a Dem Congress?
The question is not so much whether the Dems can pick off a couple of Republican senate seats, e.g. Tennessee, but whether they can hold deeply Republican seats and buck the trend.
My instinct is - counting Sanders and King - they will win the Senate back.
Have to say, I found it faintly hilarious that Sopel was gushing about Macron's masterclass, including being touchy-feely. Can't quite recall that being said when Trump held May's hand.
Our media is literally obsessed with this ‘special relationship’ stuff, it’s beyond sad.
Trudeau / Macron can do no wrong. Meet Trump, great, bomb Syria without consulting parliament, shrug, pass laws to deport illegal immigrants faster, no problemo....May does the same, boooooooooooo.
Part of the reason why they’re so liked is because the dominance of liberal centrism within the media. Both Trudeau and Macron are liberal centrists, at a time when liberal centrism is no longer the dominant force in either Labour or the Conservative Party. Although that said, I don’t think Trudeau was this bromancey with Trump.
Ms. Apocalypse, et a., bear in mind the alternatives to Macron were the FN, the far left, and an idiot who really should've stepped down but preferred to humiliate himself in the ballot box instead.
Edited extra bit: et al, too.
Apparently his approval rating in France isn’t that different to Trump’s in America. What’s really amazing is just how unpopular a lot of the main world leaders are at the moment. Hardly anyone is actually popular, there are just varying degrees of unpopularity.
If you think that Jews should not occupy Israel that seems to make you anti Zionist.
And being anti Zionist seems to make you anti semitic.
Is this right?
The question is more complicated than I thought.
According to Wikipedia .............
Semites, Semitic people or Semitic cultures (from the biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם) was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group who speak or spoke the Semitic languages
A DNA study of Jews and Palestinian Arabs (including Bedouins) found that these were more closely related to each other than to neighboring Arabs.
Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples.
Hence those racially against Palestinians are also anti semitic it seems.
True, but also a quibble (also a reason for thinking that "judeophobia" should be substituted for "anti-semitism.")
I think (but am willing to be corrected) that to be anti-Zionist is to be against Israeli expansionism and its methods of expanding. If you are against the existence of Israel at all you run in to the problem of what to do with all its citizens. Do you send them "home" bearing in mind there must be 4th and 5th generation Israel-born Jews there now? Or what?
Zionists believe Israel including Judea and Samaria (The West Bank and beyond) is the home of the Jewish people and they must therefore limit the gentiles who are allowed to live there as keeping it a majority Jewish state is fundamental. Thus the 'Right of Return' which gives all Jews the right to live in Israel is denied to all non Jews -even those born there-which is why some call it a racist/apartheid state
Right of Return is something entirely different.
It’s a right claimed by Palestinians who left Israel after 1967 to return to Israel *and be given back ownership of the land they state that they owned then* (regardless of whether they have proof or what has happened to it since.
Essentially dispossessing the current owners. They have refused the proposed compromise of fair market compensation and insisted on the precise bit of land
I am sure you can understand why that is legally and politically impossible for the Israeli government
I know somebody who lives in one of these flats. I had no idea that some of them were losing 90% of their value though, that seems insane.
It’s more uncertainty (hence an open ended liability) resulting in a conservative mark to market (in a zero liquidity environment) than a real valuation
Ms. Apocalypse, et a., bear in mind the alternatives to Macron were the FN, the far left, and an idiot who really should've stepped down but preferred to humiliate himself in the ballot box instead.
Edited extra bit: et al, too.
Apparently his approval rating in France isn’t that different to Trump’s in America. What’s really amazing is just how unpopular a lot of the main world leaders are at the moment. Hardly anyone is actually popular, there are just varying degrees of unpopularity.
Which does call into question the Labour/Conservatives would be 20 points ahead if they had a 'decent' leader argument... usually from centrists.
On Boris Johnson the one thing I do wonder about is if his popularity pre-referendum was from remainers and leavers. Obviously not everyone who voted remain will dislike Boris but he is tied in with the leave vote more than any other Conservative, most would probably think of him as the face of leave, at most second to Farage.
I wouldn't rule out him doing well electorally but from a Labour perspective I do feel it would help bring more remainers in to vote for Labour who held off but really don't like Boris. It would be a polarising choice which could go either way....
If you think that Jews should not occupy Israel that seems to make you anti Zionist.
And being anti Zionist seems to make you anti semitic.
Is this right?
The question is more complicated than I thought.
According to Wikipedia .............
A DNA study of Jews and Palestinian Arabs (including Bedouins) found that these were more closely related to each other than to neighboring Arabs.
Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples.
Hence those racially against Palestinians are also anti semitic it seems.
True, but also a quibble (also a reason for thinking that "judeophobia" should be substituted for "anti-semitism.")
I think (but am willing to be corrected) that to be anti-Zionist is to be against Israeli expansionism and its methods of expanding. If you are against the existence of Israel at all you run in to the problem of what to do with all its citizens. Do you send them "home" bearing in mind there must be 4th and 5th generation Israel-born Jews there now? Or what?
Zionists believe Israel including Judea and Samaria (The West Bank and beyond) is the home of the Jewish people and they must therefore limit the gentiles who are allowed to live there as keeping it a majority Jewish state is fundamental. Thus the 'Right of Return' which gives all Jews the right to live in Israel is denied to all non Jews -even those born there-which is why some call it a racist/apartheid state
Right of Return is something entirely different.
It’s a right claimed by Palestinians who left Israel after 1967 to return to Israel *and be given back ownership of the land they state that they owned then* (regardless of whether they have proof or what has happened to it since.
Essentially dispossessing the current owners. They have refused the proposed compromise of fair market compensation and insisted on the precise bit of land
I am sure you can understand why that is legally and politically impossible for the Israeli government
I think it's actually called 'Law of Return' which is as I've described. The Palestinian claim is something quite different. It's an Israeli act of parliament which guarantees the right of all Jews to Israeli citizenship
Comments
- Boris Johnson, 2003.
These kinds of bromances with Trump only really work if you can go back and say ‘well here’s what I’ve done.’ Other than impress establishment Republican and Democrats, Macron can’t go back to France and say he’s convinced Trump to shift on issues. Tony Blair also impressed establishment Republicans and Democrats....that didn’t do anything for his legacy in the end. Rapidly coming to this conclusion as well. I was played by Macron last year. Oh well - you live and you learn.
- Boris Johnson (attributed) in The Spectator, 2003.
Edited extra bit: et al, too.
My instinct is - counting Sanders and King - they will win the Senate back.
It’s a right claimed by Palestinians who left Israel after 1967 to return to Israel *and be given back ownership of the land they state that they owned then* (regardless of whether they have proof or what has happened to it since.
Essentially dispossessing the current owners. They have refused the proposed compromise of fair market compensation and insisted on the precise bit of land
I am sure you can understand why that is legally and politically impossible for the Israeli government
On Boris Johnson the one thing I do wonder about is if his popularity pre-referendum was from remainers and leavers. Obviously not everyone who voted remain will dislike Boris but he is tied in with the leave vote more than any other Conservative, most would probably think of him as the face of leave, at most second to Farage.
I wouldn't rule out him doing well electorally but from a Labour perspective I do feel it would help bring more remainers in to vote for Labour who held off but really don't like Boris. It would be a polarising choice which could go either way....