I think this post has kind of galvanised things for me. I've read enough drivel by right wing ideologues on this site who want to deny man made climate change in whichever way possible.
What is it about the ideological right that makes them think in this way? I don't get it. I really don't.
Capitalism is not working. It's leading to the catastrophic destruction of our planet, our ecosystems and the natural world. Obviously socialism is not the answer too...I can see that.
But for those out there considering cruises, non necessary long haul flights, buying second homes, changing cars unnecessarily...just think again. This kind of consumerism is vandalising our planet. You have to see that. It's intuitively obvious that consumeristic capitalism cannot be good. But it is an act of gross cruelty against nature to try and persuade people that human beings are not responsible for the destruction of our beautiful planet.
It is renewable energy replacing fossil fuels which is the key change, just toning down consumption is not enough on its own
And for rigid DoNothing you can't beat autocracy, central planning etc. Go have a look around the world - it takes proper central planning to create a proper environmental disaster and do nothing about it.
For example, do you know where wind turbines are being installed in a crazed frenzy, unequalled around the world - we are talking mad gold rush style, with cooling pipes used to cure the concrete footings faster... Texas. Because wind energy is now the cheap option.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally, Wilson refused to send British troops to join the US in Vietnam unlike Australia and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
His brother certainly things that Bernie stands a good chance....and I can tell you that from the horses mouth, and just before Xmas
Larry Sanders is right, at least in terms of the nomination, Bernie Sanders has a great chance of being the most leftwing Democratic presidential nominee since George McGovern, much as Jeremy Corbyn was the most leftwing Labour leader since Michael Foot.
...and that as I recall went really, really well. Oh wait...
So far as the special relationship goes, that was probably always a fiction based on a misunderstanding of American foreign policy.
The US military has multiple concurrent special relationships but the UK kids themselves they are the BAE.
Only Australian generals get service component commands on exchange. Only Canada gets full integration into NORAD (2EYES > 5EYES) Only France gets to cross deck aircraft on US carriers
For example, do you know where wind turbines are being installed in a crazed frenzy, unequalled around the world - we are talking mad gold rush style, with cooling pipes used to cure the concrete footings faster... Texas. Because wind energy is now the cheap option.
Exactly. It is the good news story of the last few years.
Even the loopiest right-wing climate change denier who doesn't give a damn about the environment is likely to have no problems with the cheap option being used. Fossils fuels for electricity generation at least are going to disappear very quickly.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
I've been rewatching the coverage of the election coverage. It's striking how the far left feels the need to get the word 'Thatcher' into every interview. You see Jon Lansmann for example, almost get past a point, realise he has missed an opportunity to say 'Thatcher', backtrack, and remake the point with the word 'Thatcher' included. It's like some sort of catechism.* It's as she's some sort of trump card: get the word 'Thatcher' into your response and you win the argument. She left office 29 years ago; there have been six Prime Ministers, seven Tory leaders and five Labour leaders since. It's akin to people from politics in the late 80s and early 90s discussing the legacy of Harold Macmillan. Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her.
*I may be using the wrong word here.
Labour has had a succession of very poor leaders post Blair....I think you'll find the lefty message goes down rather well with a credible leader....
Keir is the candidate the Tories fear most...for obvious reasons
Merely saying the word 'Thatcher' isn't a message; it's an obsession. I merely point out the number of leaders to illustrate how historical Thatcher now is, and how odd it sounds when the far left keep going on about her.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
I've been rewatching the coverage of the election coverage. It's striking how the far left feels the need to get the word 'Thatcher' into every interview. You see Jon Lansmann for example, almost get past a point, realise he has missed an opportunity to say 'Thatcher', backtrack, and remake the point with the word 'Thatcher' included. It's like some sort of catechism.* It's as she's some sort of trump card: get the word 'Thatcher' into your response and you win the argument. She left office 29 years ago; there have been six Prime Ministers, seven Tory leaders and five Labour leaders since. It's akin to people from politics in the late 80s and early 90s discussing the legacy of Harold Macmillan. Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her.
*I may be using the wrong word here.
Labour has had a succession of very poor leaders post Blair....I think you'll find the lefty message goes down rather well with a credible leader....
Keir is the candidate the Tories fear most...for obvious reasons
Merely saying the word 'Thatcher' isn't a message; it's an obsession. I merely point out the number of leaders to illustrate how historical Thatcher now is, and how odd it sounds when the far left keep going on about her.
Kier going for the union vote I see.
I before E unless after C, except for most first names (Neil, Sheila, Keith, Keir).
People like this need to be kept away from power at all costs. Outside climate change, there is no greater threat to humanity than clever algorithms that could work it out.
For example, do you know where wind turbines are being installed in a crazed frenzy, unequalled around the world - we are talking mad gold rush style, with cooling pipes used to cure the concrete footings faster... Texas. Because wind energy is now the cheap option.
Exactly. It is the good news story of the last few years.
Even the loopiest right-wing climate change denier who doesn't give a damn about the environment is likely to have no problems with the cheap option being used. Fossils fuels for electricity generation at least are going to disappear very quickly.
Trump is now trying to subsidize coal to stop it losing out to wind and gas.
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
This is where Warren screwed up, she let two rogue data points - woke twitter and Bernie running against Hillary Clinton - bait her into running far further left than she needed to.
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
The secret service can think what it wants, but it has no right to get involved with comments by a British person on a British website.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
The secret service can think what it wants, but it has no right to get involved with comments by a British person on a British website.
Ours don't we outsource it to the 4 other eyes and they pass back the bits of interest.
So far as the special relationship goes, that was probably always a fiction based on a misunderstanding of American foreign policy.
The US military has multiple concurrent special relationships but the UK kids themselves they are the BAE.
Only Australian generals get service component commands on exchange. Only Canada gets full integration into NORAD (2EYES > 5EYES) Only France gets to cross deck aircraft on US carriers
Be fair. Until we get the F35's fully up and running we've got nothing that can land on US carriers, and even after that they can't land on them without burning their decks: they've got no arrester hook.
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
So if, say, Afghanistan wanted to assassinate officials who had killed thousands of Afghans, they could go after Donald Rumsfeld? There are diplomatic precedents for good reason.
So far as the special relationship goes, that was probably always a fiction based on a misunderstanding of American foreign policy.
The US military has multiple concurrent special relationships but the UK kids themselves they are the BAE.
Only Australian generals get service component commands on exchange. Only Canada gets full integration into NORAD (2EYES > 5EYES) Only France gets to cross deck aircraft on US carriers
I think there has definitely been a Special Relationship in the past but it has now been dead for at least a decade.
I believe there are more words in the English language that break that rule than obey it.
I remember being told that the rule was I before E except after C but only if it rhymed with Bee, but have never bothered to check if that was even close to correct.
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH almost all the Warren votes go to him and he can wrap up the nomination soon after Super Tuesday while the moderate vote remains split between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Remember Trump won a majority of GOP delegates in 2016 with only 44% of the primaries vote, again benefiting from a split opposition.
About the only way war will be avoided now would be for the Iranian regime to blink, and I don't think they could stomach that loss of face.
We should probably be thankful that at least Trump hasn't tried these kind of threats regarding Hong Kong.
I am old enough to remember when Republicans told us that the Democrats were scaremongering about saying that pulling out of the nuclear deal would lead to war.
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
About the only way war will be avoided now would be for the Iranian regime to blink, and I don't think they could stomach that loss of face.
We should probably be thankful that at least Trump hasn't tried these kind of threats regarding Hong Kong.
I think they will blink. I'm not sure they know how to respond at the moment. It's doubtful they want an actual war with the US which will see the regime deposed and the leaders all killed, but any serious retaliation will lead to that result. So in the end, they will just live with it and now they know where the line is with Trump as compared to Obama which is what they were used to.
"The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Trump this week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, two congressional officials said on Saturday.
The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan."
So far as the special relationship goes, that was probably always a fiction based on a misunderstanding of American foreign policy.
The US military has multiple concurrent special relationships but the UK kids themselves they are the BAE.
Only Australian generals get service component commands on exchange. Only Canada gets full integration into NORAD (2EYES > 5EYES) Only France gets to cross deck aircraft on US carriers
Be fair. Until we get the F35's fully up and running we've got nothing that can land on US carriers, and even after that they can't land on them without burning their decks: they've got no arrester hook.
There are UK pilots serving on American carriers now. Flying F18s...
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH almost all the Warren votes go to him and he can wrap up the nomination soon after Super Tuesday while the moderate vote remains split between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Remember Trump won a majority of GOP delegates in 2016 with only 44% of the primaries vote, again benefiting from a split opposition.
The polling does not support your contention that Sanders gets all Warren's votes. He gets 32% of them according to Morning Consult, which is only a little more than Biden gets.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
For example, do you know where wind turbines are being installed in a crazed frenzy, unequalled around the world - we are talking mad gold rush style, with cooling pipes used to cure the concrete footings faster... Texas. Because wind energy is now the cheap option.
Exactly. It is the good news story of the last few years.
Even the loopiest right-wing climate change denier who doesn't give a damn about the environment is likely to have no problems with the cheap option being used. Fossils fuels for electricity generation at least are going to disappear very quickly.
The point being that free markets (when they are allowed to be free'ish) adapt to solve problems very well, given surprisingly small impetus from regulators et al.
A big problem in America is regualatory-capture-too-big-too-fail stuff where companies are practically an arm of the state and treated as if they have immunity from reality.
"The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Trump this week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, two congressional officials said on Saturday.
The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan."
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
The secret service can think what it wants, but it has no right to get involved with comments by a British person on a British website.
They will put people on the no entry list though. Which will make even changing planes in the US impossible.
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH almost all the Warren votes go to him and he can wrap up the nomination soon after Super Tuesday while the moderate vote remains split between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Remember Trump won a majority of GOP delegates in 2016 with only 44% of the primaries vote, again benefiting from a split opposition.
The polling does not support your contention that Sanders gets all Warren's votes. He gets 32% of them according to Morning Consult, which is only a little more than Biden gets.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
The secret service can think what it wants, but it has no right to get involved with comments by a British person on a British website.
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH almost all the Warren votes go to him and he can wrap up the nomination soon after Super Tuesday while the moderate vote remains split between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Remember Trump won a majority of GOP delegates in 2016 with only 44% of the primaries vote, again benefiting from a split opposition.
The polling does not support your contention that Sanders gets all Warren's votes. He gets 32% of them according to Morning Consult, which is only a little more than Biden gets.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
Biden will win the South, Sanders will win the North East, most of the Midwest and the Westcoast and the nomination and Buttigieg and Bloomberg will certainly still be there through Super Tuesday, Warren will likely have dropped out if she loses New Hampshire, her neighbouring state.
The polling does not support your contention that Sanders gets all Warren's votes. He gets 32% of them according to Morning Consult, which is only a little more than Biden gets.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
Here's the polling on second choices:
That's very helpful - thanks. Do you know where the supporters of others go if they're knocked out?
So far as the special relationship goes, that was probably always a fiction based on a misunderstanding of American foreign policy.
The US military has multiple concurrent special relationships but the UK kids themselves they are the BAE.
Only Australian generals get service component commands on exchange. Only Canada gets full integration into NORAD (2EYES > 5EYES) Only France gets to cross deck aircraft on US carriers
Be fair. Until we get the F35's fully up and running we've got nothing that can land on US carriers, and even after that they can't land on them without burning their decks: they've got no arrester hook.
There are UK pilots serving on American carriers now. Flying F18s...
despite the fact that Starmer's record as described here is actually a lot more substantial and, as others have said, targeted well at the audience (specifically people who like Starmer but fear he'd be too Blairite).
If Starmer wins, he should hire Phillips' media adviser.
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH almost all the Warren votes go to him and he can wrap up the nomination soon after Super Tuesday while the moderate vote remains split between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Remember Trump won a majority of GOP delegates in 2016 with only 44% of the primaries vote, again benefiting from a split opposition.
The polling does not support your contention that Sanders gets all Warren's votes. He gets 32% of them according to Morning Consult, which is only a little more than Biden gets.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
Biden will win the South, Sanders will win the North East, most of the Midwest and the Westcoast and the nomination and Buttigieg and Bloomberg will certainly still be there through Super Tuesday, Warren will likely have dropped out if she loses New Hampshire, her neighbouring state.
For what it is worth, I don't think Sanders will win anywhere near what you predict.
"The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Trump this week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, two congressional officials said on Saturday.
The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan."
Is Suleimani the modern-day Ferdinand?
Presumably that makes some pimply drone operator Gavrilo Princip.
Bolton and Bury are not a surprise, the 3 northern Manchester towns ( Bolton, Bury, Rochdale ) together are always close to average in the region, now 4 out of those 6 seats are Conservative.
Bolton West is a marginal or semi-marginal for both parties since it's creation many decades ago, because it has a little bit of everything. Some immigrants, some white working class, some middle class, some upper class, a bit inner city, some students, suburbs, villages and farms.
Re Sanders vs the rest. There's some excellent Siena College polling on Democratic primary voters, and they are pretty moderate.
The kicker to me was these questions:
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH almost all the Warren votes go to him and he can wrap up the nomination soon after Super Tuesday while the moderate vote remains split between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Remember Trump won a majority of GOP delegates in 2016 with only 44% of the primaries vote, again benefiting from a split opposition.
The polling does not support your contention that Sanders gets all Warren's votes. He gets 32% of them according to Morning Consult, which is only a little more than Biden gets.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
Here's the polling on second choices:
Second preferences on national polls are useless, because national polls usually are very late on picking up what goes on in Iowa, and the Iowa Caucus is very volatile.
The earliest possible date that we can have an idea about what is happening in Iowa is Feb 1st, that's 4 weeks from now.
"The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Trump this week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, two congressional officials said on Saturday.
The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan."
The guy is called Keir. Of course he's going to play the Labour nostalgia card
If I was Starmer I would forget referring to Labour Party founder Keir Hardie. Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish wrote a biography of Hardie and presents him as a nasty anti-foreigner bigot.
The guy is called Keir. Of course he's going to play the Labour nostalgia card
If I was Starmer I would forget referring to Labour Party founder Keir Hardie. Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish wrote a biography of Hardie and presents him as a nasty anti-foreigner bigot.
Has there ever been a general election loser who have doubled down on their 2 key points of failures, than Labour at the moment on Corbyn and Brexit. Its is beyond comprehension.
And on top of that Corbyn pops up to remind everyone what a major security risk he is, with his reaction to the death of Iran's terror controller.
I don't think 'terror controller' will stick. He was a general. And Iran isn't a big terror sponsor like Saudi Arabia. Raab's statement was exactly right, as is Boris's lack of statement.
I think Saudi Arabia is a worst government than Iran's but Iran is definitely more of a terrorism sponsor.
I'm really not sure where you get that information from. AFAIK terrorism as we see it comes almost entirely from the radical Sunni Islam espoused by Saudi-sponsored clerics. Iran's Shiite version of Islam is in direct competition.
Has there ever been a general election loser who have doubled down on their 2 key points of failures, than Labour at the moment on Corbyn and Brexit. Its is beyond comprehension.
And on top of that Corbyn pops up to remind everyone what a major security risk he is, with his reaction to the death of Iran's terror controller.
I don't think 'terror controller' will stick. He was a general. And Iran isn't a big terror sponsor like Saudi Arabia. Raab's statement was exactly right, as is Boris's lack of statement.
I think Saudi Arabia is a worst government than Iran's but Iran is definitely more of a terrorism sponsor.
I'm really not sure where you get that information from. AFAIK terrorism as we see it comes almost entirely from the radical Sunni Islam espoused by Saudi-sponsored clerics. Iran's Shiite version of Islam is in direct competition.
Hamas and Hezbollah are both sponsored primarily by Iran. Al-Qaeda and IS are both threats to the House of Saud. Wahhabism is split down the middle and both sides hate each other.
Has there ever been a general election loser who have doubled down on their 2 key points of failures, than Labour at the moment on Corbyn and Brexit. Its is beyond comprehension.
And on top of that Corbyn pops up to remind everyone what a major security risk he is, with his reaction to the death of Iran's terror controller.
I don't think 'terror controller' will stick. He was a general. And Iran isn't a big terror sponsor like Saudi Arabia. Raab's statement was exactly right, as is Boris's lack of statement.
I think Saudi Arabia is a worst government than Iran's but Iran is definitely more of a terrorism sponsor.
I'm really not sure where you get that information from. AFAIK terrorism as we see it comes almost entirely from the radical Sunni Islam espoused by Saudi-sponsored clerics. Iran's Shiite version of Islam is in direct competition.
Hamas and Hezbollah are both sponsored primarily by Iran. Al-Qaeda and IS are both threats to the House of Saud. Wahhabism is split down the middle and both sides hate each other.
Quds Force is apparently Anti-Wahhabist. And don't forget that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
Comments
For example, do you know where wind turbines are being installed in a crazed frenzy, unequalled around the world - we are talking mad gold rush style, with cooling pipes used to cure the concrete footings faster... Texas. Because wind energy is now the cheap option.
Only Australian generals get service component commands on exchange.
Only Canada gets full integration into NORAD (2EYES > 5EYES)
Only France gets to cross deck aircraft on US carriers
Even the loopiest right-wing climate change denier who doesn't give a damn about the environment is likely to have no problems with the cheap option being used. Fossils fuels for electricity generation at least are going to disappear very quickly.
Blimey.
The kicker to me was these questions:
Pretty impressive stuff. Carefully crafted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/04/taxpayers-will-suffer-40billion-loss-hs2-goes-ahead-official/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/30/social-media-anonymity-ban-debate-trolls-abuse--jess-phillips-jamie-bartlett
People like this need to be kept away from power at all costs. Outside climate change, there is no greater threat to humanity than clever algorithms that could work it out.
Head to the centre by 2024.
Diplomacy at its purist form.
Pause.
Damn, I'm such a dick...
Diplomacy at its purist form.
So if, say, Afghanistan wanted to assassinate officials who had killed thousands of Afghans, they could go after Donald Rumsfeld? There are diplomatic precedents for good reason.
We should probably be thankful that at least Trump hasn't tried these kind of threats regarding Hong Kong.
'targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago)'
The arbitrary witlessness of very stupid people. He'll be basing policy on evangelical numerology before long.
.In a conventional conflict only one winner so Iran will need to respond in a different way.
'targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago)'
The arbitrary witlessness of very stupid people. He'll be basing policy on evangelical numerology before long.
Too sophisticated.
"The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Trump this week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, two congressional officials said on Saturday.
The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan."
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in a very strong position. But if he does, then in all probability, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and the other moderates will have dropped out before Super Tuesday, and it will come down to Biden Vs Sanders.
A big problem in America is regualatory-capture-too-big-too-fail stuff where companies are practically an arm of the state and treated as if they have immunity from reality.
Perhaps only massive bribery from Iran to Trump personally can avoid it.
After all the Saudis and the Chinese pay cash to get on Trump's good side.
Trump's attitude screams "give me money or else I'll harm you".
That's very helpful - thanks. Do you know where the supporters of others go if they're knocked out?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jess-phillips-labour-leadership-latest-leader-jeremy-corbyn-keir-starmer-a9269216.html
despite the fact that Starmer's record as described here is actually a lot more substantial and, as others have said, targeted well at the audience (specifically people who like Starmer but fear he'd be too Blairite).
If Starmer wins, he should hire Phillips' media adviser.
Bolton and Bury are not a surprise, the 3 northern Manchester towns ( Bolton, Bury, Rochdale ) together are always close to average in the region, now 4 out of those 6 seats are Conservative.
Bolton West is a marginal or semi-marginal for both parties since it's creation many decades ago, because it has a little bit of everything.
Some immigrants, some white working class, some middle class, some upper class, a bit inner city, some students, suburbs, villages and farms.
It's an ideal testing ground.
The earliest possible date that we can have an idea about what is happening in Iowa is Feb 1st, that's 4 weeks from now.
https://twitter.com/ksadjadpour/status/1213162227542495238?s=21
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1213706896613482497?s=21