politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Hickenlooper, my 270/1 longshot for WH2020, becomes the l

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Hickenlooper, my 270/1 longshot for WH2020, becomes the latest to put his hat into the ring

It was back nearly a year ago that I suggested that the ex-Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, might be a good longshot bet for WH2016. I know several PBers are also on him a very long odds.

Read the full story here

Andrew

Mike is going to be (justifiably) insufferable if The Loop goes all the way.

MarqueeMark

What nickname will Trump come up with for him? Frickin'Loopy?

TheJezziah

Not the toughest name in the Democrat field.. not by far, still weird though!

Foxy

The problem for the Democrats is that nearly every member of the party would be a better President than Trump, and is planning to stand.

Hickenlooper has the all important weird name factor. I am in.

RoyalBlue

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

brendan16

Sunil_Prasannan said:

There was young man named Farage
Who one day got locked in his garage
He campaigned so hard
But let down his guard
And fell to an electoral barrage!

There was a young man called Sunil
Whose postings had widespread appeal
From Ilford he came
Like Noel Edmonds the same
Lets Brexit with deal or no deal!

_Anazina_

Foxy said:

The problem for the Democrats is that nearly every member of the party would be a better President than Trump, and is planning to stand.

Hickenlooper has the all important weird name factor. I am in.

Never mind the Democratic Party, 99% of the American public would make a better president than Trumpton.

HYUFD

I cannot see Hickenlooper getting the nomination, he is a centrist when Democratic primary voters want a 'progressive' left/liberal like Warren or Sanders or to an extent Harris.

However I could see Hickenlooper running as a third party independent candidate if it ends up being Trump v Sanders or Warren on a joint ticket with Kasich or Bloomberg.


Hickenlooper is the Democrats' Huntsman who was hotly tipped for the GOP nomination in 2012, good on paper but little chance of the nomination in reality

david_herdson

TheJezziah said:

Not the toughest name in the Democrat field.. not by far, still weird though!

No, although a Hickenlooper-Klobuchar ticket would need either very big boards or very small font.

If elected, Hickenlooper would have the longest name of any of the 45 presidents (currently Washington and Eisenhower at 10 letters a piece, and would be only the second four-syllable president, after Ike).

Endillion

_Anazina_ said:

Foxy said:

The problem for the Democrats is that nearly every member of the party would be a better President than Trump, and is planning to stand.

Hickenlooper has the all important weird name factor. I am in.

Never mind the Democratic Party, 99% of the American public would make a better president than Trumpton.

Slogan for the giant unified candidate: we are the 99%!

Sunil_Prasannan

FPT

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

Interesting program about the Ugandan Asians on BBC4.

It implied that Enoch Powell opposed their entry whereas I've read here that Enoch was a supporter because of obligations to British passport holders.

Can the PB minds give me the definitive facts.

I thought his views was that we had obligations to them but we should help to relocate them to somewhere like the Virgin Islands, Caymans, Seychelles etc but not the UK.

Did Enoch want them to get control of the tax havens

According to wikipedia there were 27,200 Ugandan Asians who came to the UK.

From current perspectives it really doesn't seem too many.

As a former Tory MP*^ put it to me, when it comes to Enoch Powell think of him as Nigel Farage with a classics degree.

*No, not that one

^No, not that one either.

And a distinguished military record.

Which also sets him apart from Paul Nuttall...

We were talking about him solely in the context of immigration (and race relations)

Well, surely immigration is the opposite of Classicism. In classical terms, everyone who was not a Roman was a second-class person. In immigration, everyone who goes roaming is treated as a second class person.

Good night.

fast forward to 8 min 45 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWxru2ufKVw

david_herdson

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

Sunil_Prasannan

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Foxy

david_herdson said:

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

I thout @RCS1000 was first tip on Hickenlooper.

Dadge

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Well said. Just been at a Birmingham Humanists meeting where this was the main topic of discussion. You do get the feeling that the government and the local Labour MPs are hoping they can get away with saying/doing as little as possible.

Sunil_Prasannan

MarqueeMark said:

What nickname will Trump come up with for him? Frickin'Loopy?

Chickenlooper!

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

another_richard

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

HYUFD

According to the latest RCP Democratic nomination poll average Biden leads on 29%, Sanders is second on 20% and Harris only 3rd on 12%, with Warren behind her on 7% and Booker and O'Rourke tied on 6%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Drutt

Good of Mike to release the new thread at the time of maximum jimmyrustling on the last thread. Can we try to keep it a bit more civil this time round?

Hickenlooper still 100/1 at BetFred, which is what WmHills will give you on President Leo DiCaprio.

TGOHF

MarqueeMark said:

What nickname will Trump come up with for him? Frickin'Loopy?

Snooker-loopy.

_Anazina_

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Sunil_Prasannan

Drutt said:

Good of Mike to release the new thread at the time of maximum jimmyrustling on the last thread. Can we try to keep it a bit more civil this time round?

Hickenlooper still 100/1 at BetFred, which is what WmHills will give you on President Leo DiCaprio.

"What is the most resilient parasite? A bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? AV. Resilient, highly contagious. Once AV has taken hold of PB it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An AV that is fully formed, fully understood. That sticks, right in there somewhere."

RoyalBlue

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

TGOHF

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

True dat. But should also include new religions such as AGW and Europhilia.

HYUFD

HYUFD said:

I cannot see Hickenlooper getting the nomination, he is a centrist when Democratic primary voters want a 'progressive' left/liberal like Warren or Sanders or to an extent Harris.

However I could see Hickenlooper running as a third party independent candidate if it ends up being Trump v Sanders or Warren on a joint ticket with Kasich or Bloomberg.


Hickenlooper is the Democrats' Huntsman who was hotly tipped for the GOP nomination in 2012, good on paper but little chance of the nomination in reality

In August 2017 Kasich and Hickenlooper were in discussions about running on an independent 3rd party ticket as a moderate Republican and centrist Democrat unity ticket

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket/index.html

rcs1000

another_richard said:

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)

kle4

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

I'm an atheist, and I don't think you're going to ever see that happen.

david_herdson

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

I thout @RCS1000 was first tip on Hickenlooper.

My apologies to both. Still, a decent shout, mitigated only slightly by the fact that just about everyone else is also running for the nomination.

It is odd that there were only two meaningful candidates for an open contest in 2016 but with an incumbent in place there are dozens. Sure, Trump might be a weaker presidential candidate than some who've run for re-election but then the 2016 GOP field was hardly top-rate, and sitting presidents do have a very good record of winning a second term, especially when they've won the White House from the other party.

_Anazina_

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

Foxy

HYUFD said:

According to the latest RCP Democratic nomination poll average Biden leads on 29%, Sanders is second on 20% and Harris only 3rd on 12%, with Warren behind her on 7% and Booker and O'Rourke tied on 6%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

How did Trump or Obama ppoll 18 months prior?

It is a year off Iowa, at the moment polling doesn't mean much.

_Anazina_

kle4 said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

I'm an atheist, and I don't think you're going to ever see that happen.

A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?

HYUFD

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Religion has shaped humanity in terms of everything from law to architecture to culture to war to charity and the foundation of hospitals and universities and most of humanity is still religious, even if less so in an increasingly secular UK, so of course it should be taught in schools as long as all religions are covered and if faith schools get good results as most do of course they should stay open

Sunil_Prasannan

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Foxy

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)

Isn't employment in the States at a record high?

brendan16

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Sunil_Prasannan

kle4 said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

I'm an atheist, and I don't think you're going to ever see that happen.

For the last several years, I've put "no religion" whenever I fill in job applications.

_Anazina_

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)

Unemployed igloo-dwellers might be.

RoyalBlue

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to raise a child without imparting values and beliefs. I am against wholesale indoctrination, but the problem globally is that people who agree with you have far less children than those that don’t. Atheism has to win constant converts just to stand still.

When the state of Israel was declared, 400 ultra-Orthodox men were exempted from military service. By 2050, the ultra-Orthodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

_Anazina_

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Yup. That should be explained clearly as part of the course.

_Anazina_

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Yup. That should be explained clearly as part of the course.

RoyalBlue

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Teaching children about religions with homophobic aspects is not homophobic. Hiding unpleasant facts from children forever is no way to prepare them for adulthood.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

According to the latest RCP Democratic nomination poll average Biden leads on 29%, Sanders is second on 20% and Harris only 3rd on 12%, with Warren behind her on 7% and Booker and O'Rourke tied on 6%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

How did Trump or Obama ppoll 18 months prior?

It is a year off Iowa, at the moment polling doesn't mean much.

In March 2007 Obama was already up to 26% to 30% in some polls

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

In 2015 Trump was not polled early on but took the lead by July 2015 shortly after he announced
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html#polls

Sean_F

Dadge said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Well said. Just been at a Birmingham Humanists meeting where this was the main topic of discussion. You do get the feeling that the government and the local Labour MPs are hoping they can get away with saying/doing as little as possible.

They know their voters.

But as Richard Tyndall pointed out, the law may be on the side of the parents.

rcs1000

On topic.

I reckon eight Democrats will make it through to the debates.

So, which eight?

To make it through, I reckon you need to have
- money
- solid support in your home state
- some national recognition
- indefinable "buzz"

So, here's who I don't think will make it:
Williamson, Yang, Inslee, Gabbard, Castro, Delaney

Who might make it:
Buttigieg, Gillibrand

Who will probably make it:
Warren, Booker, Hickenlooper, Kloubachar

Who will definitely make it:
Harris, Sanders, Biden (if he runs), O'Rourke (if he runs)

People who poll poorly in their own state for the Democratic nomination: Warren (only 8% of Democrats in the state pick her as their choice!), Gillibrand, Castro.

viewcode

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

I thout @RCS1000 was first tip on Hickenlooper.

IIRC, @rcs1000 and @MikeSmithson are father and son

_Anazina_

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to raise a child without imparting values and beliefs. I am against wholesale indoctrination, but the problem globally is that people who agree with you have far less children than those that don’t. Atheism has to win constant converts just to stand still.

When the state of Israel was declared, 400 ultra-Orthodox men were exempted from military service. By 2050, the ultra-Orthodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

_Anazina_

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Teaching children about religions with homophobic aspects is not homophobic. Hiding unpleasant facts from children forever is no way to prepare them for adulthood.

Spot on.

viewcode

shadsy said:

Anyone on here remember any specifics of the odds for the 1992 UK general election?
Like how short Labour would have got to win most seats, what were the odds on the day?

Trying to find pre-digital odds records at Ladbrokes is not easy.

@shadsy

I'll send you the odds on a "win" (overall majority?) for Tuesday April 7th 1992. The election was on the Thursday.

Sean_F

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.

rcs1000

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

rcs1000

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

I thout @RCS1000 was first tip on Hickenlooper.

IIRC, @rcs1000 and @MikeSmithson are father and son

Allegedly.

HYUFD

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

RoyalBlue

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Teaching children about religions with homophobic aspects is not homophobic. Hiding unpleasant facts from children forever is no way to prepare them for adulthood.

Spot on.

We’re agreeing on something!

I need a sherry...

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

According to the latest RCP Democratic nomination poll average Biden leads on 29%, Sanders is second on 20% and Harris only 3rd on 12%, with Warren behind her on 7% and Booker and O'Rourke tied on 6%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

How did Trump or Obama ppoll 18 months prior?

It is a year off Iowa, at the moment polling doesn't mean much.

In March 2007 Obama was already up to 26% to 30% in some polls

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

In 2015 Trump was not polled early on but took the lead by July 2015 shortly after he announced
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html#polls

Worth remembering, though, that the 2008 campaign was all about Hillary. Obama was simply the man in the right place at the right time. (Like Sanders in 2016.)

_Anazina_

Sean_F said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.

Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.

another_richard

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)

Doing a rough recall non-DC candidates tend to beat DC candidates if they get nominated.

edmundintokyo

david_herdson said:

TheJezziah said:

Not the toughest name in the Democrat field.. not by far, still weird though!

No, although a Hickenlooper-Klobuchar ticket would need either very big boards or very small font.

If elected, Hickenlooper would have the longest name of any of the 45 presidents (currently Washington and Eisenhower at 10 letters a piece, and would be only the second four-syllable president, after Ike).

You could economize a bit, there's already a KLO in hicKenLOoper

viewcode

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

I thout @RCS1000 was first tip on Hickenlooper.

IIRC, @rcs1000 and @MikeSmithson are father and son

Allegedly.

I believe the acid test is to compare yourself to the milkman. If you look different, you're probably OK.

asjohnstone

_Anazina_ said:

Foxy said:

The problem for the Democrats is that nearly every member of the party would be a better President than Trump, and is planning to stand.

Hickenlooper has the all important weird name factor. I am in.

Never mind the Democratic Party, 99% of the American public would make a better president than Trumpton.

I'd rule out the 43% that were stupid enough to vote for him

david_herdson

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

According to the latest RCP Democratic nomination poll average Biden leads on 29%, Sanders is second on 20% and Harris only 3rd on 12%, with Warren behind her on 7% and Booker and O'Rourke tied on 6%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

How did Trump or Obama ppoll 18 months prior?

It is a year off Iowa, at the moment polling doesn't mean much.

IIRC, Trump hit the front in about July 2015 and stayed there ever after. I'd say we're still in Name Recognition country at the moment as far as polls go.

_Anazina_

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Teaching children about religions with homophobic aspects is not homophobic. Hiding unpleasant facts from children forever is no way to prepare them for adulthood.

Spot on.

We’re agreeing on something!

I need a sherry...

I agree with your OP about homophobic parents too, and your assessment of the ERG. On political forum people’s differences are bound to be exacerbated, much of the time.

HYUFD

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to raise a child without imparting values and beliefs. I am against wholesale indoctrination, but the problem globally is that people who agree with you have far less children than those that don’t. Atheism has to win constant converts just to stand still.

When the state of Israel was declared, 400 ultra-Orthodox men were exempted from military service. By 2050, the ultra-Orthodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Globally only 9% were atheists and 25% not religious in a 2017 poll, the UK is far more secular than the global norm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

Sean_F

_Anazina_ said:

Sean_F said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.

Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.

I'm sure the average faith school takes science very seriously, as well. And being bored for the sake of the children is a part of every adult's life.

MTimT

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)

Weld is an ex-Governor too

HYUFD

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to raise a child without imparting values and beliefs. I am against wholesale indoctrination, but the problem globally is that people who agree with you have far less children than those that don’t. Atheism has to win constant converts just to stand still.

When the state of Israel was declared, 400 ultra-Orthodox men were exempted from military service. By 2050, the ultra-Orthodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Not being religious is not the same as being an outright atheist

rcs1000

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?

There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.

The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)

Weld is an ex-Governor too

Albeit, he's running for the Republican nomination.

Ishmael_Z

david_herdson said:

TheJezziah said:

Not the toughest name in the Democrat field.. not by far, still weird though!

No, although a Hickenlooper-Klobuchar ticket would need either very big boards or very small font.

If elected, Hickenlooper would have the longest name of any of the 45 presidents (currently Washington and Eisenhower at 10 letters a piece, and would be only the second four-syllable president, after Ike).

He anagrams to OK Necrophile - good album title, obv.

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

Warren, Booker, Hickenlooper, Kloubachar

I think you mean KloBAEchar

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

Do not forget though no Democratic nominee has got the nomination since Bill Clinton without first winning either Iowa or New Hampshire (and Kerry and Gore won both). Plus even Bill Clinton got a strong second in New Hampshire and then went on to win South Carolina, those early states will still be crucial in terms of momentum

david_herdson

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

This does seriously increase the chance of a contested convention.

I know it's a staple of punditry that there might not be a clear winner but the structural changes do make that a lot more likely this time. The late winner-take-all primaries (and particularly California) tended to mean that the front-runner by that point would sweep up a gigantic number of late delegate and put themselves over the top, no matter how widely split the field had been earlier on.

That can't happen this time, which also means that there's more incentive for candidates trundling along at 5-10% to stay in the race if they've a half-chance of being transfer-friendly. I could well see this going all the way to mid-July.

brendan16

"Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan"

Not just illegal - but subject to the death penalty in those nations and another 8.

The death penalty even remains on the statute books for Muslim gay men in Qatar - yet not a peep of protest in that regard about them staging the 2022 world cup. Yet people are arguing for a boycott of this year's Eurovision as its being held in Israel!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/29/british-cultural-figures-urge-bbc-to-boycott-eurovision-in-israel

rcs1000

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

This does seriously increase the chance of a contested convention.

I know it's a staple of punditry that there might not be a clear winner but the structural changes do make that a lot more likely this time. The late winner-take-all primaries (and particularly California) tended to mean that the front-runner by that point would sweep up a gigantic number of late delegate and put themselves over the top, no matter how widely split the field had been earlier on.

That can't happen this time, which also means that there's more incentive for candidates trundling along at 5-10% to stay in the race if they've a half-chance of being transfer-friendly. I could well see this going all the way to mid-July.

Absolutely. You could easily see six candidates all on around the 15% level.

And if you're only a few percent behind the leaders, why drop out?

kle4

viewcode said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, did I mention that I tipped Hickenlooper as well, back in October 2017?

(Although, I think TSE might have tipped him even earlier, damn him!)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/21/tips-for-wh2020-bullock-hickenlooper-and-trump/

I thout @RCS1000 was first tip on Hickenlooper.

IIRC, @rcs1000 and @MikeSmithson are father and son

Allegedly.

I believe the acid test is to compare yourself to the milkman. If you look different, you're probably OK.

For the modern generation of children it will need to be to compare to the Amazon delivery guy.

dixiedean

HYUFD said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to raise a child without imparting values and beliefs. I am against wholesale indoctrination, but the problem globally is that people who agree with you have far less children than those that don’t. Atheism has to win constant converts just to stand still.

When the state of Israel was declared, 400 ultra-Orthodox men were exempted from military service. By 2050, the ultra-Orthodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Not being religious is not the same as being an outright atheist

Indeed. And where do Buddhists fit in?

TheJezziah

https://twitter.com/bgreysk/status/964937313271865344

Probably one of the more entertaining misattributed quotes I've seen...

Sunil_Prasannan

brendan16 said:

"Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan"

Not just illegal - but subject to the death penalty in those nations and another 8.

The death penalty even remains on the statute books for Muslim gay men in Qatar - yet not a peep of protest in that regard about them staging the 2022 world cup. Yet people are arguing for a boycott of this year's Eurovision as its being held in Israel!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/29/british-cultural-figures-urge-bbc-to-boycott-eurovision-in-israel

It was held in Israel in 1999 after Dana International won the 1998 contest - the last time we Brits hosted it!

edmundintokyo

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

This does seriously increase the chance of a contested convention.

I know it's a staple of punditry that there might not be a clear winner but the structural changes do make that a lot more likely this time. The late winner-take-all primaries (and particularly California) tended to mean that the front-runner by that point would sweep up a gigantic number of late delegate and put themselves over the top, no matter how widely split the field had been earlier on.

That can't happen this time, which also means that there's more incentive for candidates trundling along at 5-10% to stay in the race if they've a half-chance of being transfer-friendly. I could well see this going all the way to mid-July.

IIUC there's a 15% minimum to get delegates (some statewide, some per congressional district) so candidates on 5%-10% wouldn't be getting anything like 5%-10% of delegates.

But in any case I think the normal winnowing process will apply: If you fizzle in the early states while somebody else wins them it'll just be really hard to get attention, unless you represent a part of the electorate that the leaders are leaving cold.

The only candidate I can think of like that is Tulsi Gabbard, and that's subject to Bernie failing to uphold Tankie orthodoxy on Venezuela or wherever.

HYUFD

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to rahodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Not being religious is not the same as being an outright atheist

Indeed. And where do Buddhists fit in?

They are reincarnated so probably go through phases of atheism before becoming religious again!

TheJezziah

brendan16 said:

"Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan"

Not just illegal - but subject to the death penalty in those nations and another 8.

The death penalty even remains on the statute books for Muslim gay men in Qatar - yet not a peep of protest in that regard about them staging the 2022 world cup. Yet people are arguing for a boycott of this year's Eurovision as its being held in Israel!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/29/british-cultural-figures-urge-bbc-to-boycott-eurovision-in-israel

I used to go on a football forum and there were plenty of complaints when Qatar won the bid. Admittedly many of those were around loads of other issues but the countries attitude towards women and homosexuals were brought up in discussions.

If you swapped the events around I could still see complaints both ways but football is so widely loved I couldn't see a boycott happening or having much effect. Much like with the Qatar world cup I wouldn't be surprised to see less travelling from England but this will be for a host of reasons which homophobia would just be one.

Richard_Tyndall

HYUFD said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Religion has shaped humanity in terms of everything from law to architecture to culture to war to charity and the foundation of hospitals and universities and most of humanity is still religious, even if less so in an increasingly secular UK, so of course it should be taught in schools as long as all religions are covered and if faith schools get good results as most do of course they should stay open

But Anazina is quite rightly saying that religion should be taught but in an academic way not as if it is something special. Teach religion as we teach any other subject - and as you say, include all religions equally.

But don't teach it as fact in the way the believers want. Teach it from the aspect of its undoubted impact on society, history and culture but don't teach that it has any basis in reality.

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

This does seriously increase the chance of a contested convention.

I know it's a staple of punditry that there might not be a clear winner but the structural changes do make that a lot more likely this time. The late winner-take-all primaries (and particularly California) tended to mean that the front-runner by that point would sweep up a gigantic number of late delegate and put themselves over the top, no matter how widely split the field had been earlier on.

That can't happen this time, which also means that there's more incentive for candidates trundling along at 5-10% to stay in the race if they've a half-chance of being transfer-friendly. I could well see this going all the way to mid-July.

IIUC there's a 15% minimum to get delegates (some statewide, some per congressional district) so candidates on 5%-10% wouldn't be getting anything like 5%-10% of delegates.

But in any case I think the normal winnowing process will apply: If you fizzle in the early states while somebody else wins them it'll just be really hard to get attention, unless you represent a part of the electorate that the leaders are leaving cold.

The only candidate I can think of like that is Tulsi Gabbard, and that's subject to Bernie failing to uphold Tankie orthodoxy on Venezuela or wherever.

I think that depends on the state, which each having different rules.

brendan16

Sunil_Prasannan said:

brendan16 said:

"Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan"

Not just illegal - but subject to the death penalty in those nations and another 8.

The death penalty even remains on the statute books for Muslim gay men in Qatar - yet not a peep of protest in that regard about them staging the 2022 world cup. Yet people are arguing for a boycott of this year's Eurovision as its being held in Israel!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/29/british-cultural-figures-urge-bbc-to-boycott-eurovision-in-israel

It was held in Israel in 1999 after Dana International won the 1998 contest - the last time we Brits hosted it!

Yes who can forget 'Viva la Diva'. Perhaps it should be this site's theme song looking at some of the posts earlier tonight?

PS I hope the vote for Israel logo on the still frame doesn't trigger anybody!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y6URd7LAog

Richard_Tyndall

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Even if it discriminates against gay people?

Teaching children about religions with homophobic aspects is not homophobic. Hiding unpleasant facts from children forever is no way to prepare them for adulthood.

Spot on.

We’re agreeing on something!

I need a sherry...

I agree with your OP about homophobic parents too, and your assessment of the ERG. On political forum people’s differences are bound to be exacerbated, much of the time.

Yep, both RoyalBlue and Black-Rook have displayed admirable restraint this evening in making solid, reasoned cases against the parents who object to the normalisation of homosexuality in education. It is something that is long overdue.

I would welcome a debate over what age we should start sex education as I am uncomfortable with some of the suggestions of starting at such an early age but that may well just be my natural reserve. I am certainly open to persuasion on the matter. But as to the content of such education I think portraying sexual equality in its various forms is very much to be welcomed.

daodao

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The current Jewish year is 5779, but the Jewish view towards homosexuality is also similar to that of Islam. It is codified in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, where such practices are defined as an abomination and deserving of the ultimate penalty of death.

Much of the hostility to Jews and Muslims is because they have different moral values and beliefs that are an anathema to current Western attitudes. The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

rcs1000

daodao said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The current Jewish year is 5779, but the Jewish view towards homosexuality is also similar to that of Islam. It is codified in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, where such practices are defined as an abomination and deserving of the ultimate penalty of death.

Much of the hostility to Jews and Muslims is because they have different moral values and beliefs that are an anathema to current Western attitudes. The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

Would those decadent ideas include the right for parents to decide what ideas are suitable for their children or not?

Richard_Tyndall

daodao said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The current Jewish year is 5779, but the Jewish view towards homosexuality is also similar to that of Islam. It is codified in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, where such practices are defined as an abomination and deserving of the ultimate penalty of death.

Much of the hostility to Jews and Muslims is because they have different moral values and beliefs that are an anathema to current Western attitudes. The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

Not when they live in a non Muslim country. I am extremely relaxed about Muslims or any other religion coming to settle in the UK. But they have to obey the laws and cultural mores of the country they are settling in. I expect no less when I live or work in an Islamic country even when I feel their laws or customs are wrong.

viewcode

Ishmael_Z said:

david_herdson said:

TheJezziah said:

Not the toughest name in the Democrat field.. not by far, still weird though!

No, although a Hickenlooper-Klobuchar ticket would need either very big boards or very small font.

If elected, Hickenlooper would have the longest name of any of the 45 presidents (currently Washington and Eisenhower at 10 letters a piece, and would be only the second four-syllable president, after Ike).

He anagrams to OK Necrophile - good album title, obv.

One of Radiohead's more cheerful efforts, IIRC

kle4

daodao said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

Pretty sure society as a whole is quite willing to decide people, including parents, do not have every right to do any number of things.

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

This does seriously increase the chance of a contested convention.

I know it's a staple of punditry that there might not be a clear winner but the structural changes do make that a lot more likely this time. The late winner-take-all primaries (and particularly California) tended to mean that the front-runner by that point would sweep up a gigantic number of late delegate and put themselves over the top, no matter how widely split the field had been earlier on.

That can't happen this time, which also means that there's more incentive for candidates trundling along at 5-10% to stay in the race if they've a half-chance of being transfer-friendly. I could well see this going all the way to mid-July.

IIUC there's a 15% minimum to get delegates (some statewide, some per congressional district) so candidates on 5%-10% wouldn't be getting anything like 5%-10% of delegates.

But in any case I think the normal winnowing process will apply: If you fizzle in the early states while somebody else wins them it'll just be really hard to get attention, unless you represent a part of the electorate that the leaders are leaving cold.

The only candidate I can think of like that is Tulsi Gabbard, and that's subject to Bernie failing to uphold Tankie orthodoxy on Venezuela or wherever.

I think that depends on the state, which each having different rules.

I think a 15% floor is a DNC meta-rule, try searching this for "15%":
https://www.scribd.com/document/398419012/Delegate-Selection-Rules-for-the-2020-Democratic-National-Convention

dixiedean

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to rahodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Not being religious is not the same as being an outright atheist

Indeed. And where do Buddhists fit in?

They are reincarnated so probably go through phases of atheism before becoming religious again!

I practice meditation every day attend a gathering at least once a week, and go on retreat monthly if I can. That would make me very religious by most people's standards, certainly in the UK.
I am also an atheist.
As well as a person of faith.

Drutt

_Anazina_ said:

Sean_F said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.

Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.

Don't tell her I said this, but your wife is quite right. All the kids have worked hard getting their lines and dressing gowns and tea towels and gold and frankinstein and myhrr right, and all the mums and dads are there to watch them. Your 'well I don't believe in baby jesus' interjection would rightly be greeted with public consternation at a school nativity, in the same way that my 'but none of the founding fathers were rappers!' rant would lead to a somewhat curtailed night at the Vic.

And your wife agrees with mine that we should keep our so-called 'scientific' view on radioactive spider bites to ourselves, too.

Sunil_Prasannan

Drutt said:

_Anazina_ said:

Sean_F said:

_Anazina_ said:

I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.

Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.

Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.

Don't tell her I said this, but your wife is quite right. All the kids have worked hard getting their lines and dressing gowns and tea towels and gold and frankinstein and myhrr right, and all the mums and dads are there to watch them. Your 'well I don't believe in baby jesus' interjection would rightly be greeted with public consternation at a school nativity, in the same way that my 'but none of the founding fathers were rappers!' rant would lead to a somewhat curtailed night at the Vic.

And your wife agrees with mine that we should keep our so-called 'scientific' view on radioactive spider bites to ourselves, too.

My only acting credit to date was as one of the Three Wise Men, the who offered myrrh. I was only 7

HYUFD

daodao said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The current Jewish year is 5779, but the Jewish view towards homosexuality is also similar to that of Islam. It is codified in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, where such practices are defined as an abomination and deserving of the ultimate penalty of death.

Much of the hostility to Jews and Muslims is because they have different moral values and beliefs that are an anathema to current Western attitudes. The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

Homosexuality is fully legal in Israel and Israel also has civil partnerships

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

Two more things to remember about this market:

1. The Dems go all proportional will their delegate counts. So there could be a bunch of candidates with similar numbers of delegates, as wins in one state are offset by poor performances elsewhere. A candidate with four or five second places could actually end up in the lead.

2. Texas, California and Colorado are all early states. (As our Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada - only there aren't any candidates from those states.)

This does seriously increase the chance of a contested convention.

I know it's a staple of punditry that there might not be a clear winner but the structural changes do make that a lot more likely this time. The late winner-take-all primaries (and particularly California) tended to mean that the front-runner by that point would sweep up a gigantic number of late delegate and put themselves over the top, no matter how widely split the field had been earlier on.

That can't happen this time, which also means that there's more incentive for candidates trundling along at 5-10% to stay in the race if they've a half-chance of being transfer-friendly. I could well see this going all the way to mid-July.

IIUC there's a 15% minimum to get delegates (some statewide, some per congressional district) so candidates on 5%-10% wouldn't be getting anything like 5%-10% of delegates.

But in any case I think the normal winnowing process will apply: If you fizzle in the early states while somebody else wins them it'll just be really hard to get attention, unless you represent a part of the electorate that the leaders are leaving cold.

The only candidate I can think of like that is Tulsi Gabbard, and that's subject to Bernie failing to uphold Tankie orthodoxy on Venezuela or wherever.

I think that depends on the state, which each having different rules.

I think a 15% floor is a DNC meta-rule, try searching this for "15%":
https://www.scribd.com/document/398419012/Delegate-Selection-Rules-for-the-2020-Democratic-National-Convention

"States shall allocate district-level delegates and alternates in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a fifteen percent (15%) threshold shall not be awarded any delegates. Subject to section F. of this rule, no state shall have a threshold above or below fifteen percent (15%). States which use a caucus/convention system, shall specify in their Delegate Selection Plans the caucus level at which such percentages shall be determined."

15% per district is not the same as 15% per state.

TheJezziah

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to rahodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religiosity is very hard to quantify worldwide. But, in the UK, the only way is down. Atheists are now in the majority here, which runs counter to the disproportionate influence organised superstition has on our public life.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-atheist-no-religion-uk-christianity-islam-sikism-judaism-jewish-muslims-a7928896.html?amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Not being religious is not the same as being an outright atheist

Indeed. And where do Buddhists fit in?

They are reincarnated so probably go through phases of atheism before becoming religious again!

I practice meditation every day attend a gathering at least once a week, and go on retreat monthly if I can. That would make me very religious by most people's standards, certainly in the UK.
I am also an atheist.
As well as a person of faith.

My own personal definition would be along the lines of believing in an entity (or entities) that actively does something. To take the Christian faith he made the universe even if he doesn't interfere now.

Spirituality involving connecting with nature/yourself or some kind of reincarnation which happens without a god actively doing something wouldn't count for me.

daodao

kle4 said:

daodao said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

Pretty sure society as a whole is quite willing to decide people, including parents, do not have every right to do any number of things.

There is a difference between providing information that there are people who are homosexual, who should be treated with toleration, and actively endorsing/promoting such lifestyles to the children of people who regard them as an abomination.

edmundintokyo

Drutt said:

Your 'well I don't believe in baby jesus' interjection would rightly be greeted with public consternation at a school nativity

Agree, that would be inappropriate, there are much better ways for a resourceful parent to destroy a school nativity play.

HYUFD

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

_Anazina_ said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT

Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive

I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.

No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Why imagine a furore about something that hasn’t happened and won’t happen?

In any case, refusing to let one’s children learn about a major world religion is also indefensible.

Indeed, as a humanities academic study.

Brainwashing children with religious *beliefs* before they are old enough to form their own opinions is indefensible.

I don’t think it’s possible to rahodox will make up 30% of the entire population.

Israel is a tiny country. Religio-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Not being religious is not the same as being an outright atheist

Indeed. And where do Buddhists fit in?

They are reincarnated so probably go through phases of atheism before becoming religious again!

I practice meditation every day attend a gathering at least once a week, and go on retreat monthly if I can. That would make me very religious by most people's standards, certainly in the UK.
I am also an atheist.
As well as a person of faith.

Buddhism is a religion so if you practice Buddhism you are religious by definition, even Buddhists have gods even if they do not believe in a creator deity

daodao

HYUFD said:

daodao said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.

Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that

The difference is the school almost certainly wouldn't have backed down in that scenario and would have received support from MPs, councillors, the media etc etc who would have openly criticised the parents.

Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?

Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar

The current Jewish year is 5779, but the Jewish view towards homosexuality is also similar to that of Islam. It is codified in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, where such practices are defined as an abomination and deserving of the ultimate penalty of death.

Much of the hostility to Jews and Muslims is because they have different moral values and beliefs that are an anathema to current Western attitudes. The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.

Homosexuality is fully legal in Israel and Israel also has civil partnerships

In many ways Israel is a state for Jews, but not a Jewish state.