I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.
He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.
The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.
But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
You're suggesting that the Dems should pick a multi-billionaire Republican as their candidate in order to guarantee defeating Trump?
Seems a bit self-defeating to me.
To be fair, he’s not really a Republican either. Even if he did run as one for mayor, he was a registered Democrat for some time.
Really he’s just a better-than-your-average billionaire. (And also richer than average.)
When I was at university in the mid-1970s , it was certainly not assumed that courting couples were sleeping together - some were - others were not. I was active in the Anglican & Methodist Society , and recall the shock and red faces when in 1975 a member - in a longterm relationship with her boyfriend at home -became pregnant. She took a year out and married him.
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.
He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.
The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.
But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
You're suggesting that the Dems should pick a multi-billionaire Republican as their candidate in order to guarantee defeating Trump?
Seems a bit self-defeating to me.
To be fair, he’s not really a Republican either. Even if he did run as one for mayor, he was a registered Democrat for some time.
Really he’s just a better-than-your-average billionaire. (And also richer than average.)
Bloomberg is basically a US Cameroon or Orange Book LD with a dash of Blairism, that is not what either the Republicans or the Democrats want at the moment
Trump decides he’s pro water pollution, and acts on it: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/trump-epa-curbs-water-protections-102779 The Trump administration on Thursday signed its long-promised regulation to remove millions of miles of streams and roughly half the country’s wetlands from federal protection, the largest rollback of the Clean Water Act since the modern law was passed in 1972....
Trump decides he’s pro water pollution, and acts on it: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/trump-epa-curbs-water-protections-102779 The Trump administration on Thursday signed its long-promised regulation to remove millions of miles of streams and roughly half the country’s wetlands from federal protection, the largest rollback of the Clean Water Act since the modern law was passed in 1972....
Nandy looks to be picking up steem, could be just chance that the CLPs she was all ways likely to win have come now, but also possible that, getting sufficient endorsements to get on the ballot, people are starting to take her seriously and doing well in that 'focus group that was televised early this week will have helped with those members who are just looking for a winner.
Trump decides he’s pro water pollution, and acts on it: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/trump-epa-curbs-water-protections-102779 The Trump administration on Thursday signed its long-promised regulation to remove millions of miles of streams and roughly half the country’s wetlands from federal protection, the largest rollback of the Clean Water Act since the modern law was passed in 1972....
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.
Just in case.
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!
? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
Your antipathy towards religious people getting married before having sex.
Pressure in either direction is potentially harmful. Certainly, people are harmed by pressures exerted by religion, including this one. Equally there are plenty of people who feel pressured into sex, and not always by their sexual partner - sometimes by wider society. There's a poll on this I can probably find if I have to.
I say equally, but in fact I think kinabalu was right to say "it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage". In light of that, people applying pressure in that direction is probably the bigger problem.
FWIW, I was raised Catholic, and although people didn't really talk about whether sex before marriage was wrong, I was obviously aware of the teaching and know plenty of people who practised it. Despite rejecting both that teaching and Christianity as a whole a long time ago, I have no experience of it harming anyone, including me.
When I was at university in the mid-1970s , it was certainly not assumed that courting couples were sleeping together - some were - others were not. I was active in the Anglican & Methodist Society , and recall the shock and red faces when in 1975 a member - in a longterm relationship with her boyfriend at home -became pregnant. She took a year out and married him.
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.
This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.
And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and
I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.
Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.
To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.
But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.
As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:
Bloomberg would not accept it, as he would have to implement policies he disagreed with, like hammering Wall Street with tax and cancelling student debt and universal healthcare
Ultimately, Sanders proposals aren't affordable. As he will discover if he ever becomes President.
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
When I was at university in the mid-1970s , it was certainly not assumed that courting couples were sleeping together - some were - others were not. I was active in the Anglican & Methodist Society , and recall the shock and red faces when in 1975 a member - in a longterm relationship with her boyfriend at home -became pregnant. She took a year out and married him.
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.
Just in case.
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!
? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
Your antipathy towards religious people getting married before having sex.
Pressure in either direction is potentially harmful. Certainly, people are harmed by pressures exerted by religion, including this one. Equally there are plenty of people who feel pressured into sex, and not always by their sexual partner - sometimes by wider society. There's a poll on this I can probably find if I have to.
I say equally, but in fact I think kinabalu was right to say "it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage". In light of that, people applying pressure in that direction is probably the bigger problem.
FWIW, I was raised Catholic, and although people didn't really talk about whether sex before marriage was wrong, I was obviously aware of the teaching and know plenty of people who practised it. Despite rejecting both that teaching and Christianity as a whole a long time ago, I have no experience of it harming anyone, including me.
Bizarre post.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.
He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.
The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.
But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
Well, to be fair, Bloomberg only chose to enter this race really, really late. If he'd started a bit earlier, it might be very different.
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.
This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.
And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and
I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.
Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.
To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.
But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.
As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:
Bloomberg would not accept it, as he would have to implement policies he disagreed with, like hammering Wall Street with tax and cancelling student debt and universal healthcare
Ultimately, Sanders proposals aren't affordable. As he will discover if he ever becomes President.
He will not be president. But if he is Dem nominee, he will ensure Trump four years.
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
Still, that’s a net addition of 999,900 trees assuming Trumpton delivers.
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
Other things that were mainstream: Global cooling Communism The Beatles The hippie movement Black and white TV The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.
Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....
Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
Well, it's a funny old world.
Nearly 50 years later Justin Trudeau still hasn't learnt that lesson.
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
Still, that’s a net addition of 999,900 trees assuming Trumpton delivers.
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
Still, that’s a net addition of 999,900 trees assuming Trumpton delivers.
I met a Muslim girl I quite fancied once, Libyan heritage, and we really got on.
Eventually we were close enough to have that conversation and it was clear she was very socially conservative: she'd expect the husband-to-be to convert *and* marry her before there was any hanky-panky.
Obviously that didn't go anywhere but I still think we'd have had great fun and she'd have gone like the clappers had she not been constrained by that.
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I
? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
Your antipathy towards religious people getting married before having sex.
Pressure in either direction is potentially harmful. Certainly, people are harmed by pressures exerted by religion, including this one. Equally there are plenty of people who feel pressured into sex, and not always by their sexual partner - sometimes by wider society. There's a poll on this I can probably find if I have to.
I say equally, but in fact I think kinabalu was right to say "it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage". In light of that, people applying pressure in that direction is probably the bigger problem.
FWIW, I was raised Catholic, and although people didn't really talk about whether sex before marriage was wrong, I was obviously aware of the teaching and know plenty of people who practised it. Despite rejecting both that teaching and Christianity as a whole a long time ago, I have no experience of it harming anyone, including me.
Bizarre post.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
You show a certain lack of self awareness yourself in that you appear prejudiced against those inclined to observe traditional Christian moral standards. My own views were pretty mainstream in the 1970s. Why should everybody feel obliged to run with the flow by following whatever happens to be the conventional view at a particular time?
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
Still, that’s a net addition of 999,900 trees assuming Trumpton delivers.
999,999,999,900.
What is it with lefties and big numbers?
Ha! My maths is good, but I read the OP as a million, not a million million.
That's an excellent poll for him, although it's worth remembering that just two days ago Suffolk (an A-rated pollster) had him on just 16% in New Hampshire.
I struggle with the volatility of some of these polls. So, in the last ten days, we've had Biden on 26% in first place in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg in fourth on just 7%. And we've had Buttigieg in second on 17%, with Biden on just 14%. Sanders range hasn't been much less 29% to 16%.
I don't believe that underlying support swings around that much, so someone's likely to end up with egg on their face.
Primary polling is simply vastly more volatile than Presidential polling.
In 2016 the Iowa Republican polls within 10 days of the caucus gave ranges
The pathetic sample size in most US polls must be relevant - andikf they're that relaxed about numbers, I don't trust them to do proper demographic balance either.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
I made it clear at the time that I strongly disagreed with Justin. However, I am capable of strongly disagreeing with people without hating them. And as I also said at the time, I strongly dislike mob-mentality.
Your comments betray a deep prejudice towards religious people, along with a self-righteousness that makes you unable to see that prejudice. I felt it necessary to challenge your views, because others were challenging Justin's views but nobody was challenging yours.
That's an excellent poll for him, although it's worth remembering that just two days ago Suffolk (an A-rated pollster) had him on just 16% in New Hampshire.
I struggle with the volatility of some of these polls. So, in the last ten days, we've had Biden on 26% in first place in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg in fourth on just 7%. And we've had Buttigieg in second on 17%, with Biden on just 14%. Sanders range hasn't been much less 29% to 16%.
I don't believe that underlying support swings around that much, so someone's likely to end up with egg on their face.
Primary polling is simply vastly more volatile than Presidential polling.
In 2016 the Iowa Republican polls within 10 days of the caucus gave ranges
The pathetic sample size in most US polls must be relevant - andikf they're that relaxed about numbers, I don't trust them to do proper demographic balance either.
Iowa particularly meaningless - a lot of caucus havent decided
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I
? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
Your antipathy towards religious people getting married before having sex.
Bizarre post.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
You show a certain lack of self awareness yourself in that you appear prejudiced against those inclined to observe traditional Christian moral standards. My own views were pretty mainstream in the 1970s. Why should everybody feel obliged to run with the flow by following whatever happens to be the conventional view at a particular time?
Your views were more mainstream in the 1970s, as were homophobia and racism.
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.
Just in case.
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!
? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
Your antipathy towards religious people getting married before having sex.
Pressure in either direction is potentially harmful. Certainly, people are harmed by pressures exerted by religion, including this one. Equally there are plenty of people who feel pressured into sex, and not always by their sexual partner - sometimes by wider society. There's a poll on this I can probably find if I have to.
I say equally, but in fact I think kinabalu was right to say "it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage". In light of that, people applying pressure in that direction is probably the bigger problem.
FWIW, I was raised Catholic, and although people didn't really talk about whether sex before marriage was wrong, I was obviously aware of the teaching and know plenty of people who practised it. Despite rejecting both that teaching and Christianity as a whole a long time ago, I have no experience of it harming anyone, including me.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
Were they? I can only remember people criticising his views, and people like me thinking it better we know his reasons than they be hidden, somehow the support for his specific reasons slipped past me.
Should non-Christians marry in an Anglican church (hypocrites), in a registry office or a synagogue or the like (sacramentally irrelevant), or not at all (and their children are born out of wedlock and damned by the extremely narrow-minded)?
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
I made it clear at the time that I strongly disagreed with Justin. However, I am capable of strongly disagreeing with people without hating them. And as I also said at the time, I strongly dislike mob-mentality.
Your comments betray a deep prejudice towards religious people, along with a self-righteousness that makes you unable to see that prejudice. I felt it necessary to challenge your views, because others were challenging Justin's views but nobody was challenging yours.
As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.
In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.
Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.
Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.
Extra-marital sex, generational differences and politics. For many older people it was true that President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. Sex could lead to pregnancy. What Bill and Monica did with the cigar was heavy petting, not sex.
Heavy petting should be done In public swimming pools and nowhere else...
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
I made it clear at the time that I strongly disagreed with Justin. However, I am capable of strongly disagreeing with people without hating them. And as I also said at the time, I strongly dislike mob-mentality.
Your comments betray a deep prejudice towards religious people, along with a self-righteousness that makes you unable to see that prejudice. I felt it necessary to challenge your views, because others were challenging Justin's views but nobody was challenging yours.
That the birthplace of the Jezziah should spurn his chosen successor, shameful.
Ungrateful sods. Presumably there is a blue plaque marking the birth of the winner of the 2019 GE?
Now now, you're being unfair. Corbynites only argue they won the 2017GE, for 2019 they merely won the argument, which is one step down. At this rate of progress if the party were to fracture into a dozen pieces and the Labour Party won 0 seats, they might concede that things had not gone very well.
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'
I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.
Just in case.
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!
? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
Were they? I can only remember people criticising his views, and people like me thinking it better we know his reasons than they be hidden, somehow the support for his specific reasons slipped past me.
Nope. Look back at the thread.
There was one memorable post where someone claimed that his withdrawing his vote for her on the basis she is an unmarried mother was not discriminatory.
If that is not an act of discrimination, it is hard to see what is.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
I made it clear at the time that I strongly disagreed with Justin. However, I am capable of strongly disagreeing with people without hating them. And as I also said at the time, I strongly dislike mob-mentality.
Your comments betray a deep prejudice towards religious people, along with a self-righteousness that makes you unable to see that prejudice. I felt it necessary to challenge your views, because others were challenging Justin's views but nobody was challenging yours.
Yes, thanks - I probably should have worked that one out for myself.
It seems likely, does it not, that RLB and Thronberry will both obtain the necessary nominations one way or another to join the members' ballot?
RLB should get there through either/both routes. She's still on pace for CLPs and apparently a big union has basically agreed to endorse her. If that put her above 5% affiliate members she'd need any other affiliate organisation and there must be one more willing. Thornberry is less clear, little affiliate backing and CLPs are trickling in. I could see it drying up for her and her not making it.
That the birthplace of the Jezziah should spurn his chosen successor, shameful.
Ungrateful sods. Presumably there is a blue plaque marking the birth of the winner of the 2019 GE?
Now now, you're being unfair. Corbynites only argue they won the 2017GE, for 2019 they merely won the argument, which is one step down. At this rate of progress if the party were to fracture into a dozen pieces and the Labour Party won 0 seats, they might concede that things had not gone very well.
2024: "We took the fight to the Tories."
2029: "There are 100 hundred seats in Britain that want a socialist government."
2033: "The Liberals came back from worse."
2037: "I am the only Labour MP in Britain but I am proud of my heritage."
Labour should outsource its leadership contests to pb Tories. We can spot a duff 'un a mile off.
In this case, the PB Tories have been largely correct! In fact, on the Labour leadership race generally they have been unusually fair-minded, which gives me concern...
Labour should outsource its leadership contests to pb Tories. We can spot a duff 'un a mile off.
In this case, the PB Tories have been largely correct! In fact, on the Labour leadership race generally they have been unusually fair-minded, which gives me concern...
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.
This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.
And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and
I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.
Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.
To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.
But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.
As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:
Bloomberg would not accept it, as he would have to implement policies he disagreed with, like hammering Wall Street with tax and cancelling student debt and universal healthcare
Ultimately, Sanders proposals aren't affordable. As he will discover if he ever becomes President.
He will not be president. But if he is Dem nominee, he will ensure Trump four years.
Trump deserves to be President for four more years. He has to be in power when the chickens come home to roost on his fiscal policy.
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.
This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.
And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and
I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.
Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.
To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.
But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.
As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:
Bloomberg would not accept it, as he would have to implement policies he disagreed with, like hammering Wall Street with tax and cancelling student debt and universal healthcare
Ultimately, Sanders proposals aren't affordable. As he will discover if he ever becomes President.
He will not be president. But if he is Dem nominee, he will ensure Trump four years.
Trump deserves to be President for four more years. He has to be in power when the chickens come home to roost on his fiscal policy.
I am not sure the world could handle four more years of his foreign policy with results like Syria or North Korea.
Should non-Christians marry in an Anglican church (hypocrites), in a registry office or a synagogue or the like (sacramentally irrelevant), or not at all (and their children are born out of wedlock and damned by the extremely narrow-minded)?
The policy that you have to marry in a religious place or a registry office is a joke.
Should non-Christians marry in an Anglican church (hypocrites), in a registry office or a synagogue or the like (sacramentally irrelevant), or not at all (and their children are born out of wedlock and damned by the extremely narrow-minded)?
The policy that you have to marry in a religious place or a registry office is a joke.
A Pakistani friend (a Muslim) told me that he met his Scottish fiancee at St Andrew's College, and they saw that the college church was "proudly non-denominational", so they went to ask if they could be married there. "Ah, no," said the vicar, "It dinna mean more than that we tolerate Church of England folk."
Trump may issue a decree to plant a million million trees, but today I actually authorised cutting down a hundred or so. And indeed that has already happened so Trump has some catching up to do.
Still, that’s a net addition of 999,900 trees assuming Trumpton delivers.
Labour should outsource its leadership contests to pb Tories. We can spot a duff 'un a mile off.
In this case, the PB Tories have been largely correct! In fact, on the Labour leadership race generally they have been unusually fair-minded, which gives me concern...
None of the candidates worry us!
That said, I still think Nandy comes closest.
The only one who looks like a PM is Starmer (though still not as much as Boris of course)
Labour should outsource its leadership contests to pb Tories. We can spot a duff 'un a mile off.
In this case, the PB Tories have been largely correct! In fact, on the Labour leadership race generally they have been unusually fair-minded, which gives me concern...
None of the candidates worry us!
That said, I still think Nandy comes closest.
The only one who looks like a PM is Starmer (though still not as much as Boris of course)
Comments
Really he’s just a better-than-your-average billionaire.
(And also richer than average.)
Seems unlikely.
Wow. Manchester. By 1 vote. RBL aint gonna win this is she?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/trump-epa-curbs-water-protections-102779
The Trump administration on Thursday signed its long-promised regulation to remove millions of miles of streams and roughly half the country’s wetlands from federal protection, the largest rollback of the Clean Water Act since the modern law was passed in 1972....
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/21/trump-hails-1tn-trees-plan-but-ignores-roots-of-problem
1,000,000,000,000
Long-Bailey and Butler
Ian Murray got Ilford North
Witney is Starmer/Rayner
Beckenham : Starmer and Rayner
Hornchurch and Upminster: Starmer and Allin-Khan
Pressure in either direction is potentially harmful. Certainly, people are harmed by pressures exerted by religion, including this one. Equally there are plenty of people who feel pressured into sex, and not always by their sexual partner - sometimes by wider society. There's a poll on this I can probably find if I have to.
I say equally, but in fact I think kinabalu was right to say "it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage". In light of that, people applying pressure in that direction is probably the bigger problem.
FWIW, I was raised Catholic, and although people didn't really talk about whether sex before marriage was wrong, I was obviously aware of the teaching and know plenty of people who practised it. Despite rejecting both that teaching and Christianity as a whole a long time ago, I have no experience of it harming anyone, including me.
We entered the twilight zone earlier this week where Labour posters (Labour!) were defending Justin for withdrawing his vote from Nandy because he’d learned that she is an unmarried mum.
This really is FFS stuff. It’s prejudice, pure and simple, and utterly inexcusable. Yet the likes of @NickPalmer seemed to think it fine, and you, too, it seems.
Nearly 50 years later Justin Trudeau still hasn't learnt that lesson.
What is it with lefties and big numbers?
https://twitter.com/TomLaing14/status/1220471526610415617
If you, er, need a hand setting it up......
Eventually we were close enough to have that conversation and it was clear she was very socially conservative: she'd expect the husband-to-be to convert *and* marry her before there was any hanky-panky.
Obviously that didn't go anywhere but I still think we'd have had great fun and she'd have gone like the clappers had she not been constrained by that.
Should she have run for leader?
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1220474204732215296
Your comments betray a deep prejudice towards religious people, along with a self-righteousness that makes you unable to see that prejudice. I felt it necessary to challenge your views, because others were challenging Justin's views but nobody was challenging yours.
Of course, all were wrong then, as they are now.
I don’t hate him. I don’t know him.
But a bigot he is.
Labour should outsource its leadership contests to pb Tories. We can spot a duff 'un a mile off.
- Genesis, 9:7.
It seems likely, does it not, that RLB and Thronberry will both obtain the necessary nominations one way or another to join the members' ballot?
There was one memorable post where someone claimed that his withdrawing his vote for her on the basis she is an unmarried mother was not discriminatory.
If that is not an act of discrimination, it is hard to see what is.
2024: "We took the fight to the Tories."
2029: "There are 100 hundred seats in Britain that want a socialist government."
2033: "The Liberals came back from worse."
2037: "I am the only Labour MP in Britain but I am proud of my heritage."
https://twitter.com/uptone/status/1220437062022828034
That said, I still think Nandy comes closest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsDWN3FNF2E
https://twitter.com/CLPNominations/status/1220487155035918342?s=20