Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
I imagine both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were worried when Epstein was arrested. Do you know who almost certainly wasn't?
Barack Obama.
Perhaps not in relation to Epstein but there were rumours of visitations to bars in his younger days with Rahm Emanuel and former lovers who Emanuel ensured disappeared
Please don't spread completely unsubstantiated and quite possibly libelous rumours on here. OGH and I don't want to get sued. And I don't want to have to ban you.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
The way I read this, it's just saying: in terms of getting caught up in the Epstein scandal (rather than separate CSA scandals in their own households or whatever) then the fact Epstein's circle tended metropolitan/liberal - and hence overlapped the Democratic elite more than the Republican elite - suggests a disproportionate amount of the fallout is likely to lie on the former.
Though as RCS says, this is less of an issue for gay/female Democrats or indeed male Democrats who are clearly not part of the Epstein party circuit, and there are still some Republican men with things to worry about. Given that the most high profile is Trump, and his links seem to be getting a lot of media attention (despite the fact he was probably less close than Clinton was) then maybe politically it is mostly going to wash out overall. To add to RCS's list, it's presumably good news for Mike Pence, not, one would think, Epstein's kinda guy, and presumably most unlikely to allow himself to be found "alone" in a room with a hot female masseuse. One thing about the scandal is that it puts his rather old -fashioned sense of morality in human relations into a rather better light than it's usually cast in.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
I imagine both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were worried when Epstein was arrested. Do you know who almost certainly wasn't?
Barack Obama.
Perhaps not in relation to Epstein but there were rumours of visitations to bars in his younger days with Rahm Emanuel and former lovers who Emanuel ensured disappeared
That is strange as I remember reading an article with interviews of ex-girlfriends. How exactly did Rahm Emmanuel disappear them? With the candlestick in the library?
I believe the interviews were conducted via seance.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
The way I read this, it's just saying: in terms of getting caught up in the Epstein scandal (rather than separate CSA scandals in their own households or whatever) then the fact Epstein's circle tended metropolitan/liberal - and hence overlapped the Democratic elite more than the Republican elite - then a disproportionate amount of the fallout is likely to lie on the former.
Though as RCS says, this is less of an issue for gay/female Democrats or indeed male Democrats who are clearly not part of the Epstein party circuit, and there are still some Republican men with things to worry about. Given that the most high profile is Trump, and his links seem to be getting a lot of media attention (despite the fact he was probably less close than Clinton was) then maybe politically it is mostly going to wash out overall. To add to RCS's list, it's presumably good news for Mike Pence, not, one would think, Epstein's kinda guy on the party circuit, and presumably most unlikely to allow himself to be found "alone" in a room with a hot female masseuse. One thing about the scandal is that it puts his rather old -fashioned sense of morality in human relations into a rather better light than it's usually cast in.
Small probabilities, but if something does stop Trump deciding to run for re-election, then it really wouldn't do Pence any harm if it's over the sort of scandal where it's largely personal to Trump rather than his administration as a whole, and Pence's personal ethics end up looking better.
I suspect most Trump voters for now are rather more interested in the Clinton-Epstein stuff than what many will see as Trump-Epstein "fake news", so I doubt this scandal will be the turning point for Trump, but who can be sure? Goodness knows what else could come out of this all and where it will end up going. If I were Epstein, I think I would have kept had a safe crammed with kompromat sitting in a trusted party's office...
I might be wrong about the difficulty Boris would face if he did get a deal actually, and in any event it seems unlikely to matter since it seems so hypothetical. But let's say the government did seal a new WA which looks very much like the old one, and with some changes regarding the backstop (probably not much time to change anything else significant other than to remove the immediate sticking point, and just perhaps there's some room for manoeuvre somewhere - completely hypothetically, via some fixed time limit or establishing a procedure for further kicking-into-long-grass regarding alternative arrangements).
Let's also assume there's enough time to attempt to get it through Parliament. But who would vote for it in the Commons?
Certainly wouldn't get the full support of the Tory parliamentary party.
DUP might not buy an obvious fudge and even hypothetically it's hard to see any non-fudgy solution.
Lib Dems - couldn't be seen to vote for Brexit when Remain has become their electoral and ideological rallying point. Probably applies to their Remain Alliance friends too.
SNP - presumably in a similar situation to the Lib Dems, and a disastrous No Deal Brexit would actually help them attain their core political raison d'etre.
Corbyn - massive defeat for the government might be the trigger for a GE as far as he's concerned?
Labour backbenchers - might depend on constituency. May seemed to think she'd get a lot of abstentions but it didn't happen. And many Labour MPs in strong leave seats seemed to prefer to vote in line with their personal preferences, presumably having done the maths on their majorities and figuring that a red rosette would win the day anyhow. Perhaps if this was clearly a genuine last-chance to avoid No Deal and every other route was closed off, they might bite at it. Maybe even their leadership might.
I'm sure there's a question of optics, not wanting Johnson to look like he's heroically pulled a deal out of the bag at the last minute, only for Labour/SNP etc to throw the country into economic disaster. But then there'll always be some fatal flaw they could point to in any proposed agreement, and if it doesn't get through parliament the opposition can blame both the government's failure to secure a good enough deal, and, almost certainly, Tory disunity. So particularly if they've done their bit at a VoNC or attempt to push a second ref through, they might have a cop-out on why they effectively voted for No Deal. Nothing worse than what Johnson had done himself in the past, of course.
Would love to hear views on this from those better-informed or simply better at the strategising/tea-reading business. The key would presumably be the Labour party, both their official and backbench positions.
Though as RCS says, this is less of an issue for gay/female Democrats or indeed male Democrats who are clearly not part of the Epstein party circuit, and there are still some Republican men with things to worry about. Given that the most high profile is Trump ….
Trump was a registered Democrat at the time, and all the way through the Bush1 admin. He only switched parties when Obama became President.
three out of five voters in Northern Ireland would prefer a border down the Irish Sea to a hard Brexit.
58.4% of respondents said they would vote in favour of "a border in the Irish Sea" and would rather Northern Ireland remained more closely aligned with the EU than Great Britain.
Some 39.5% said they would reject the compromise, while 2.1% said they did not know.
... experts have warned that at least 40,000 jobs could be at risk in Northern Ireland if an agreement is not reached.
At this rate Boris Johnson is even going to ruin our stockpiling efforts!
Yep. Some of us cynics have been stockpiling for months. You can barely get down my hall to the living room...
What kind of stock have you been piling up?
Knorr? Oxo?
2 parts soya milk to 1 part alcohol.
One thing we WON'T run out of is wine. Australia has the largest share of the UK retail wine market, bigger than France or Italy.
If we run out of alcohol then I riot.
We do make quite a lot of our own, as well. We are the world's biggest producer of scotch, the home of gin, plus all those lovely stouts, porters, IPAs, lagers....
You can rest easy. We can all get totally shit-faced as the country explodes.
We're the biggest producer of something that can only be produced here.
That's quite an achievement.
😁
Whyte & Mackay is made in India for the Indian market. Even though I’d hesitate to call it “Scotch”
I thought Boris's letter seemed entirely sensible. I think it will play well with the public.
I thought it was bonkers. And yes it will. However, that is of limited and diminishing utility. Push is once again coming to shove. Once again, that perennial Tory Plan A, get the EU to cave, has failed, with more weeks wasted.
It’s very simple.
Parliament has said the Deal is unacceptable. The EU has said it won’t change.
Boris is doing the right thing pushing to address the blockage while preparing for No Deal.
Either Parliament will fold (Alistair Burt was pushing the WA on the Week in Westminister in Sunday) or the EU will fold. (My assumption is that parliament won’t vote to revoke).
Part of the issue is all those idiot MPs who rush around talking about how they can block No Deal. All that does is encourage the EU to hold fast. It might be the EU wouldn’t move regardless, but the whole farago has been a master class in how politicians can undermine the country’s negotiation position
There's literally nothing on the Brexit Party list of objections to the WA that's true.
Irrelevant. Because they didn't leave when they had the chance the Tories have now subcontracted their Brexit policy to BXP out of panic and fear, with only shamelessness preventing admission of that. BXP can claim and believe anything and the Tories will seek to do what they want.
And before someone claims the Tory policy is to just get Brexit of some kind to mollify BXP, the official policy, if that was what they actually wanted the WA would have been approved.
The vast majority of Tories did vote for it
There was a hard core of fanatics/opportunists who voted against.
At least the fanatics - who believe that No Deal is better - have credit for doing what they think is right for the country (even if they are idiots). Similarly I think the LibDems and SNP are wrong but at least they are consistent (ish).
Shame on the opportunists, on Grieve and his bunch of fanatics and on Labour MPs who wail and rend their clothes while facilitating what they profess to oppose above all else.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
Not speaking for him but I think he is saying:
1. Epstein friendship group was X 2. Democrats are over represented in X 3. Assuming that his fellow abusers were from his friendship group then it is probable that Democrats are over represented
The letter is the first time Johnson has ever acknowledged Ireland has legitimate interests. It still has arrogance in it but seems to me to be pleading with the EU to get him out of his difficult situation. ( Which is of his own making and Ireland/EU don't owe him any favours).
The backstop is the only thing he mentions.
The Yellowhammer revelations seem to have spooked the Johnson regime. And blaming No Deal on Hammond is nonsensical. Hammond wants a deal so much he voted for it three times, unlike Johnson. If you are really serious about No Deal, planning is sensible precautions you would want people to know about and you wouldn't seek to blame the outcome on implausible others.
Which makes me think Johnson isn't serious about No Deal.
Dont agree..the BJ govt is working on the assumption that leaks from former remain ministers will be the norm...
I love the way 'neutral' articles such as these which point out the revolutionary reckless nature of Brexit (and therefore the absolute lack of certainty as to what will happen after) have to also have a go at remainers for balance. "What , please sir, is your grand strategy?" Etc etc
FFS when the house is at risk of burning down you don't stop to think about how you will design the extension, or what the redecoration scheme will be.....
Apologies to those who may have made the same point. I haven't had time to read all the discussion.
Comments
Please don't spread completely unsubstantiated and quite possibly libelous rumours on here. OGH and I don't want to get sued. And I don't want to have to ban you.
Though as RCS says, this is less of an issue for gay/female Democrats or indeed male Democrats who are clearly not part of the Epstein party circuit, and there are still some Republican men with things to worry about. Given that the most high profile is Trump, and his links seem to be getting a lot of media attention (despite the fact he was probably less close than Clinton was) then maybe politically it is mostly going to wash out overall. To add to RCS's list, it's presumably good news for Mike Pence, not, one would think, Epstein's kinda guy, and presumably most unlikely to allow himself to be found "alone" in a room with a hot female masseuse. One thing about the scandal is that it puts his rather old -fashioned sense of morality in human relations into a rather better light than it's usually cast in.
Sun seems onboard too.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9749138/remainers-wake-up-brexit-is-happening/amp?__twitter_impression=true
I suspect most Trump voters for now are rather more interested in the Clinton-Epstein stuff than what many will see as Trump-Epstein "fake news", so I doubt this scandal will be the turning point for Trump, but who can be sure? Goodness knows what else could come out of this all and where it will end up going. If I were Epstein, I think I would have kept had a safe crammed with kompromat sitting in a trusted party's office...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/global-network-s-nuclear-sensors-in-russia-go-dark-after-mystery-blast-20190820-p52ipz.html
58.4% of respondents said they would vote in favour of "a border in the Irish Sea" and would rather Northern Ireland remained more closely aligned with the EU than Great Britain.
Some 39.5% said they would reject the compromise, while 2.1% said they did not know.
... experts have warned that at least 40,000 jobs could be at risk in Northern Ireland if an agreement is not reached.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-poll-saying-majority-backs-irish-sea-border-rejected-by-dup-38414210.html
Parliament has said the Deal is unacceptable. The EU has said it won’t change.
Boris is doing the right thing pushing to address the blockage while preparing for No Deal.
Either Parliament will fold (Alistair Burt was pushing the WA on the Week in Westminister in Sunday) or the EU will fold. (My assumption is that parliament won’t vote to revoke).
Part of the issue is all those idiot MPs who rush around talking about how they can block No Deal. All that does is encourage the EU to hold fast. It might be the EU wouldn’t move regardless, but the whole farago has been a master class in how politicians can undermine the country’s negotiation position
Gloomy day.
There was a hard core of fanatics/opportunists who voted against.
At least the fanatics - who believe that No Deal is better - have credit for doing what they think is right for the country (even if they are idiots). Similarly I think the LibDems and SNP are wrong but at least they are consistent (ish).
Shame on the opportunists, on Grieve and his bunch of fanatics and on Labour MPs who wail and rend their clothes while facilitating what they profess to oppose above all else.
1. Epstein friendship group was X
2. Democrats are over represented in X
3. Assuming that his fellow abusers were from his friendship group then it is probable that Democrats are over represented
I think that is just logic?
I have no idea whether it is accurate or not
FFS when the house is at risk of burning down you don't stop to think about how you will design the extension, or what the redecoration scheme will be.....
Apologies to those who may have made the same point. I haven't had time to read all the discussion.