Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
The Warren vote has collapsed in his favour and none of the moderate candidates have a strong enough message or charismatic enough personality to counter his populist rhetoric
Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
In part it seems like just his turn - these american primaries, before the votes, seem to give any halfway credible candidate with at least some time in the sun. Biden was always the major figure at the start, and we've had periods where Warren, then Buttegieg and now Sanders seem to be rising and getting the most attention. Add to that Sanders having, apparently, a very committed core of support and I'd assume he was always better placed for the long haul and that would show through at some point.
Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
In part it seems like just his turn - these american primaries, before the votes, seem to give any halfway credible candidate with at least some time in the sun. Biden was always the major figure at the start, and we've had periods where Warren, then Buttegieg and now Sanders seem to be rising and getting the most attention. Add to that Sanders having, apparently, a very committed core of support and I'd assume he was always better placed for the long haul and that would show through at some point.
In six weeks time we'll probably be falling about laughing. "Remember that "Sanders surge"? Hahahahaha....".
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same thing about Biden, and you can see Biden's mental deterioration. Unfortunately it looks like a Soviet Politburo.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
In part it seems like just his turn - these american primaries, before the votes, seem to give any halfway credible candidate with at least some time in the sun. Biden was always the major figure at the start, and we've had periods where Warren, then Buttegieg and now Sanders seem to be rising and getting the most attention. Add to that Sanders having, apparently, a very committed core of support and I'd assume he was always better placed for the long haul and that would show through at some point.
It helps that half the primary voters have voted for Sanders before, so it's not that much of a mental leap.
That's why those who ran before and did well, always have an advantage when running again.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
The Warren vote has collapsed in his favour and none of the moderate candidates have a strong enough message or charismatic enough personality to counter his populist rhetoric
That last debate was indeed pivotal, I was correct in thinking that the Sanders-Warren clash would move their voters towards one side or the other.
In the end Warren was the one who lost because no one believed that Sanders was a sexist.
Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.
Um. He is.
And it doesn't end there. He also shares much of Corbyn's personal unpopularity and issues. Witness Hillary Clinton's comments about him the other day.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
If it's only the arctic then the solution is at hand. It doesn't require world wide radical changes, but climate change is too often used as a vehicle for those seeking or holding power through radical change.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
Maybe, though note the last candidate to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House was 69, Reagan when he beat Carter in 1980
If the Democrats manage to put forward someone as their candidate who isn’t even a member of their party, who then goes on to lose against Trump because they are too left wing for the American electorate, what will the fallout be? Could it bring down the existing party system?
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
What's the other "side"? Carry on flying and eating beef and drinking milk, and hope for the techno best, and if it fails, _shrugs*?
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Austin Powers puts the "grrr" in Swinger, baby, yeah!
Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.
He pretty much is. Distance makes him seem less bizarre.
Without subscribing to your terminology, I think Sanders has given fewer specific hostages to fortune. He'll obviously get attacked as a socialist, but numerous polls show that that'd not the killer argument for most Americans that it once was. I do worry that he's vulnerable - I'm sure Trump will call him a "commie" - but he's not quite as easy to target.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
What's the other "side"? Carry on flying and eating beef and drinking milk, and hope for the techno best, and if it fails, _shrugs*?
That it's a pointless distraction. That alternatives to meat can be worse for the environment. That a balanced omnivorous diet is both healthy and natural. That we should support British farmers. And that we need to innovate in the sustainability of our animal husbandry and welfare, and less intensive farming, but it's otherwise fine.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.
Exactly.
It's another (more promising) front for them to have another crack at socialism.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.
What’s wrong with algae paste? Fine old Mexica dish.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.
My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency. I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.
Great bet on Sanders. I'll join you at the back-alley clinic if Bloomberg comes through.
I have £8 at 760/1 on Amy Klobuchar for the White House. I've traded a bit in but do really rather nicely if she makes it. It does mean I'm all green on the next president.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Laughable post casino. The politics and the money comes from the right to try and keep the truth of science from the people.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.
On topic : Sanders is very different from Corbyn. More brains, a lot less socialism and no history of hard core negative nationalism.
On the environment (and other things) :
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6476/348 - The UK government is going to move away from the EU model of agricultural subsidies to ones that provide environmental benefits. So bonus points for reductions in chemicals that kill (useful) insects etc.
"Canary Wharf’s Winter Lights Festival has become a firm fixture in the post-festive calendars of many Londoners – providing as it does a welcome opportunity to wrap up against the cold and enjoy a rare dose of the outdoors in these dark deep winter days."
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.
One of the good things to come out of the Cold Fusion comedy was the list of people for whom fixing climate change without tearing down the existing order was a disaster. There was quite a number of them.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.
Same for Trump, both are well over 70
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than Bernie
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.
My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency. I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.
Great bet on Sanders. I'll join you at the back-alley clinic if Bloomberg comes through.
I have £8 at 760/1 on Amy Klobuchar for the White House. I've traded a bit in but do really rather nicely if she makes it. It does mean I'm all green on the next president.
Why's the USA apparently less ageist than the UK political class and electorate?
Imagine a UK election (presumably a PR one to have so much choice) featuring as party leaders Ken Clarke, Bill Cash, Vince Cable, Jeremy Corbyn, Hilary Benn and as token 'youngsters' Nicola Sturgeon and Adam Price.
Plus a speaker who's nearly 80 ... our ex-speaker is only 56.
Plus a candidate who's had a heart attack mid-campaign. A heart attack was the end of Michael Heseltine's career.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
"Canary Wharf’s Winter Lights Festival has become a firm fixture in the post-festive calendars of many Londoners – providing as it does a welcome opportunity to wrap up against the cold and enjoy a rare dose of the outdoors in these dark deep winter days."
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.
He pretty much is. Distance makes him seem less bizarre.
Without subscribing to your terminology, I think Sanders has given fewer specific hostages to fortune. He'll obviously get attacked as a socialist, but numerous polls show that that'd not the killer argument for most Americans that it once was. I do worry that he's vulnerable - I'm sure Trump will call him a "commie" - but he's not quite as easy to target.
In the 1970s many claimed that Reagan was far too rightwing to be elected.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
They talk of moving them around on lorries.
What could possibly go wrong?
No, they talk of moving chunks around on lorries to be commissioned into a working nuke on site.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Laughable post casino. The politics and the money comes from the right to try and keep the truth of science from the people.
If you had the intelligence to dissect my post you might realise why they do that.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
Laughable post casino. The politics and the money comes from the right to try and keep the truth of science from the people.
If you had the intelligence to dissect my post you might realise why they do that.
It could be more mundane. Follow the money. Much of the American right, including many think tanks, has long been funded by Koch Industries (big coal miners with some oil interests).
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I'm also a big fan of Gregg's vegan sausage roll
Yes, you're a vegetarian Sunil. We know.
I have no beef with you (ha ha) personal or religions vegetarians have been around for decades. They've always been tolerant of ominvores and never tried to leverage mainstream politics to impose their views on others.
The neo-vegans are zealots on a crusade and on totally another level.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I'm also a big fan of Gregg's vegan sausage roll
Yes, you're a vegetarian Sunil. We know.
I have no beef with you (ha ha) personal or religions vegetarians have been around for decades. They've always been tolerant of ominvores and never tried to leverage mainstream politics to impose their views on others.
The neo-vegans are zealots on a crusade and on totally another level.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
Molten salt reactors... ah, that one. Why not pebble bed reactors? or gaseous core reactors*? The problem is that that they are attempts to fix technical problems which require political solutions.
The RR design above uses existing reactor technology - and in turn supports the industrial base for making submarine reactors (brownie points!). It envisages a production line of small, identical reactors.
So instead of using your first, test reactor as a production item, you have a developed design before you deploy it. A developed design that will require certification once (brownie points!)
You can then deploy them to existing nuclear power station sites. Where they simply plug into the existing grid infrastructure. So it is very hard to hold them up at the planning stage (brownie points!).
In contrast, MSRs and the rest require a development program for a new design - no, there are no off the shelf designs. Then you have the whole nuclear planning enquiry comedy to go through....
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
Crossrail's probably still a year or two away from opening, but almost all the stations between Stratford and Shenfield have new purple "roundel" signs in the style of London Underground. Only Romford doesn't at time of writing.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
Whether or not there was bullying involved, and that can be a high bar to reach, it is pretty notable that there are no shortage of people who worked closely with Bercow who wish to make clear that he is apparently a pretty nasty man. And that is actually pretty unusual.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
Thorium is a waste of time and money, the technology isn't developing fast enough and it still carries a lot of the negative connotations of nuclear. I used to be a huge proponent in favour of nuclear but the facts have changed since then, renewables are so much cheaper and the mineshaft power storage idea has a lot of potential to solve the problems of peak usage etc...
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.
Are mandatory car seats a factor here by requiring mum to lift the child awkwardly which is easier if the seat is higher up (as well as taking more room)?
Doing a YouGov survey, and someone's testing out names.
"For the following question, you will be shown a series of proposed names for a new rail organisation covering England, Scotland and Wales. This would be a single organisation responsible for maintaining the track, managing contracts with train companies, and dealing directly with passengers."
Then about 20 follow-up questions. Options are British Rail, Rail for Britain, UK Rail, Rail UK
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
This idea has substantial problems...
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
Thorium is a waste of time and money, the technology isn't developing fast enough and it still carries a lot of the negative connotations of nuclear. I used to be a huge proponent in favour of nuclear but the facts have changed since then, renewables are so much cheaper and the mineshaft power storage idea has a lot of potential to solve the problems of peak usage etc...
I tend to agree with your general point about nuclear, but this is likely a more economic way of dealing with our high level nuclear waste problem long term than the alternatives.
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.
Are mandatory car seats a factor here by requiring mum to lift the child awkwardly which is easier if the seat is higher up (as well as taking more room)?
Most so-called SUVs are pretty much estate cars repackaged as shorter and higher (to get the volume). Take most of them round a 4x4 trial course..... ha!
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.
Are mandatory car seats a factor here by requiring mum to lift the child awkwardly which is easier if the seat is higher up (as well as taking more room)?
Most so-called SUVs are pretty much estate cars repackaged as shorter and higher (to get the volume). Take most of them round a 4x4 trial course..... ha!
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad too
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.
I know. It's kind of impressive, in its own way. A whole story about a wave of terrible violence centred very much on one "community", and they still manage to avoid explicitly identifying it.
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very happy concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
Seriously - anyone? Communists? Neo-Nazis? IS supporters wishing to abolish democracy and impose sharia law? Really?
I like meat, though I eat much less than I used to - preferring quality over quantity - but I would not make it more important than democracy or avoiding an illiberal theocracy.
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad too
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.
I know. It's kind of impressive, in its own way. A whole story about a wave of terrible violence centred very much on one "community", and they still manage to avoid explicitly identifying it.
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad too
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.
I know. It's kind of impressive, in its own way. A whole story about a wave of terrible violence centred very much on one "community", and they still manage to avoid explicitly identifying it.
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad too
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.
No, it is more likely because Sweden does not officially record ethnicity, so I guess the Guardian were simply reporting the facts as they had them The quote which includes ‘inshallah’ is hardly straining your imaginary editorial muscle...
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.
The roof rack is overdue a return. If you strap the children to it then you don't have to listen to their moaning and bickering all the time, nor do you have to stop every few miles for wee-wee or risk spoiling the interior of the vehicle, and all the insects flying into their mouths will provide good nutrition and reduce the requirement to feed them. I mean, what's not to like?
Comments
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
Unfortunately it looks like a Soviet Politburo.
On which point, it must be of greater than average interest who his running mate is if he gets the nomination.
That's why those who ran before and did well, always have an advantage when running again.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
In the end Warren was the one who lost because no one believed that Sanders was a sexist.
And it doesn't end there. He also shares much of Corbyn's personal unpopularity and issues. Witness Hillary Clinton's comments about him the other day.
It doesn't require world wide radical changes, but climate change is too often used as a vehicle for those seeking or holding power through radical change.
It's KLOBUCHAR.
I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1221139263867301888?s=20
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
It's another (more promising) front for them to have another crack at socialism.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
On the environment (and other things) :
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6476/348 - The UK government is going to move away from the EU model of agricultural subsidies to ones that provide environmental benefits. So bonus points for reductions in chemicals that kill (useful) insects etc.
On the subject of useful divergence from the EU - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51240785.
"Canary Wharf’s Winter Lights Festival has become a firm fixture in the post-festive calendars of many Londoners – providing as it does a welcome opportunity to wrap up against the cold and enjoy a rare dose of the outdoors in these dark deep winter days."
https://laterthanyouthink.org/2020/01/25/winter-lights2020/
Imagine a UK election (presumably a PR one to have so much choice) featuring as party leaders Ken Clarke, Bill Cash, Vince Cable, Jeremy Corbyn, Hilary Benn and as token 'youngsters' Nicola Sturgeon and Adam Price.
Plus a speaker who's nearly 80 ... our ex-speaker is only 56.
Plus a candidate who's had a heart attack mid-campaign. A heart attack was the end of Michael Heseltine's career.
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
What could possibly go wrong?
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
I have no beef with you (ha ha) personal or religions vegetarians have been around for decades. They've always been tolerant of ominvores and never tried to leverage mainstream politics to impose their views on others.
The neo-vegans are zealots on a crusade and on totally another level.
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.
The RR design above uses existing reactor technology - and in turn supports the industrial base for making submarine reactors (brownie points!). It envisages a production line of small, identical reactors.
So instead of using your first, test reactor as a production item, you have a developed design before you deploy it. A developed design that will require certification once (brownie points!)
You can then deploy them to existing nuclear power station sites. Where they simply plug into the existing grid infrastructure. So it is very hard to hold them up at the planning stage (brownie points!).
In contrast, MSRs and the rest require a development program for a new design - no, there are no off the shelf designs. Then you have the whole nuclear planning enquiry comedy to go through....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Sunil060902+Crossrail+roundel&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1
"For the following question, you will be shown a series of proposed names for a new rail organisation covering England, Scotland and Wales. This would be a single organisation responsible for maintaining the track, managing contracts with train companies, and dealing directly with passengers."
Then about 20 follow-up questions. Options are British Rail, Rail for Britain, UK Rail, Rail UK
https://www.moltexenergy.com/stablesaltreactors/
I tend to agree with your general point about nuclear, but this is likely a more economic way of dealing with our high level nuclear waste problem long term than the alternatives.
In a classic mini.
I remember helping my dad force the boot shut. We didn’t need airbags. The pillows did that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
https://www.twitter.com/WindsorMann/status/1217936911999913984
Heroic.
I like meat, though I eat much less than I used to - preferring quality over quantity - but I would not make it more important than democracy or avoiding an illiberal theocracy.
The quote which includes ‘inshallah’ is hardly straining your imaginary editorial muscle...