Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Those who have spent their lifetimes in and around Westminster seriously underestimate the wish of the general public to give a serious kicking to the whole system.
That section of the public that wants to give a kicking to the system has been pampered, cosseted and pandered to by that system for years in ways they don’t even notiances.
r.
I most certainly do have skin in the game. My wife is going to be one of the first applicants under the new immigration regime - the one that doesn't care where in the world you're from, but only what you can bring to the country.
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
I wish you luck with your wife, but you can't really argue you're not somewhat removed from an ordinary British life right now!
Every budget we go through this trailing the potential loss of higher rate pension relief. It probably ought to happen, but always seems to serve the role of softening people up for something else.
Interesting that beneath the hyperbole of the anti- article on Mail online, the balance of comments so far is pretty even between angries from Tunbridge Wells and other pensioners who feel it's high time the wealthy made a sacrifice.
Those who have spent their lifetimes in and around Westminster seriously underestimate the wish of the general public to give a serious kicking to the whole system.
That section of the public that wants to give a kicking to the system has been pampered, cosseted and pandered to by that system for years in ways they don’t even notice. They should be careful what they wish for.
We will agree to disagree here, but just this week there has been a court case about the police abusing their powers turning up at someone's work to discuss 'non-crime' social media comments, while at the same time they seem unwilling to keep roads open for ambulances.
A group that are largely on index linked state benefits have decided that everyone else is going to have to roll the dice so they can indulge their prejudices. As you know yourself, if you feel you have no skin in the game you can be more reckless when it’s other people who might suffer.
I most certainly do have skin in the game. My wife is going to be one of the first applicants under the new immigration regime - the one that doesn't care where in the world you're from, but only what you can bring to the country.
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up....
Were you saying the same of all the leave Europe obsessives for the last thirty years, or were you just sympathetic to their cause ?
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
Because he never has before, and it's never hurt him before.
The full extent of the entitlement of the super rich is not fully appreciable by the rest of humanity.
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
Sure you want to change the subject. But there's an important point here. Like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the 30 Years' War, you're willing to fight to the bones of the last Finn. If it all goes wrong, it won't afrect you in any meaningful way. You need to accept that this underpins your approach to Brexit and allows you to be brutally casual about, for example, the risks of the government continuing to pursue the North Korean model that it currently favours.
Meanwhile, I again risk at the end of the year having to hold my partner while he suffers uncontrollable seizures because someone decided that continuing a scorched earth policy towards the EU was more important than reliably securing the supply of medicines.
Although many people do that now as the availability of the best Cannabis Oil is denied to UK patients with epilepsy by the frequently toxic (when it doesn't deliver the medicine your cause wants) NICE. Many face similar deprevation of the best treatments for diseases such as cancer when drugs are denied to them.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
Andrew Yang also pointed out that Michael Bloomberg was underprepared.
I wonder whether it points to a different problem. A man as rich as Michael Bloomberg is almost certainly unused to subordinates bringing his personal failings to his attention. Preparing for such attacks needs a willingness for those preparing him to attack him viciously. Would he be ready to undergo such an assault in preparation? Would his aides feel able to provide it?
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
It’s hard to tell Billionaires they’re not good at something.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Having been touting for JRM, you did switch horses to Boris earlier than most, for sure. The election majority was so obvious that even I had money on it.
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
Sure you want to change the subject. But there's an important point here. Like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the 30 Years' War, you're willing to fight to the bones of the last Finn. If it all goes wrong, it won't afrect you in any meaningful way. You need to accept that this underpins your approach to Brexit and allows you to be brutally casual about, for example, the risks of the government continuing to pursue the North Korean model that it currently favours.
Meanwhile, I again risk at the end of the year having to hold my partner while he suffers uncontrollable seizures because someone decided that continuing a scorched earth policy towards the EU was more important than reliably securing the supply of medicines.
Although many people do that now as the availability of the best Cannabis Oil is denied to UK patients with epilepsy by the frequently toxic (when it doesn't deliver the medicine your cause wants) NICE. Many face similar deprevation of the best treatments for diseases such as cancer when drugs are denied to them.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
That's a pretty impressive bit of whataboutery to justify risking my other half's health to prove a political point. Welcome to the death cult.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
It’s hard to tell Billionaires they’re not good at something.
Anyway, I hope that Debate was a lesson to all of those who thought that Bloomberg could win the Presidency.
Steady on. That was only one debate.
Important not to totally overreact to this.
Long way to go yet.
Isn't that part of the problem? All the candidates look tarnished and clapped out already, whilst Trump's sitting back and laughing.
I don’t think Klobuchar does.
She’s consistently performed pretty well but just hasn’t got much traction.
She got a great deal of traction from the previous debate. Just not quite enough... and no follow up this time. Forgetting the name of the Mexican President in a live interview wasn't great for her, either And she kind of lost it during the debate last night.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
Andrew Yang also pointed out that Michael Bloomberg was underprepared.
I wonder whether it points to a different problem. A man as rich as Michael Bloomberg is almost certainly unused to subordinates bringing his personal failings to his attention. Preparing for such attacks needs a willingness for those preparing him to attack him viciously. Would he be ready to undergo such an assault in preparation? Would his aides feel able to provide it?
He probably thinks he is so successful that he has no personal failings...
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
Sure you want to change the subject. But there's an important point here. Like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the 30 Years' War, you're willing to fight to the bones of the last Finn. If it all goes wrong, it won't afrect you in any meaningful way. You need to accept that this underpins your approach to Brexit and allows you to be brutally casual about, for example, the risks of the government continuing to pursue the North Korean model that it currently favours.
Meanwhile, I again risk at the end of the year having to hold my partner while he suffers uncontrollable seizures because someone decided that continuing a scorched earth policy towards the EU was more important than reliably securing the supply of medicines.
We will never agree, clearly.
No I'don't think the government will allow a shortage of medicines under any circumstances. I think they they would use every piece of emergency legislation, and every available civil and military resource available to them, to prevent it occurring.
(I'm still interested in your views on pensions policy, as I was with your excellent piece on Coronavirus yesterday).
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
Sure you want to change the subject. But there's an important point here. Like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the 30 Years' War, you're willing to fight to the bones of the last Finn. If it all goes wrong, it won't afrect you in any meaningful way. You need to accept that this underpins your approach to Brexit and allows you to be brutally casual about, for example, the risks of the government continuing to pursue the North Korean model that it currently favours.
Meanwhile, I again risk at the end of the year having to hold my partner while he suffers uncontrollable seizures because someone decided that continuing a scorched earth policy towards the EU was more important than reliably securing the supply of medicines.
Although many people do that now as the availability of the best Cannabis Oil is denied to UK patients with epilepsy by the frequently toxic (when it doesn't deliver the medicine your cause wants) NICE. Many face similar deprevation of the best treatments for diseases such as cancer when drugs are denied to them.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
That's a pretty impressive bit of whataboutery to justify risking my other half's health to prove a political point. Welcome to the death cult.
Some of us have lived with these conundrums in our families for decades. Whataboutery it is not. Experience of illness and medical supplies it is.
Death cult is your personal construction that resides in your imagination. Enjoy the ride.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
The response I heard on the R4 News sounded OK to me. He stressed his record in running New York, contrasted his business success with Trump's inheritance, pointed out all the money he had given away, and returned to the key object of getting rid of Trump.
He was weaker on the attacks of sexism, but then his defence there is intrinsically weak.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
I actually think HYUFD is right this time.
The odds increased from absolute zero to minuscule.
And if Sanders is the nominee, I'd expect him to concentrate on funding the Senate races.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
He seems to think he can just cruise to victory off the back of $400m ads that he delegates to someone else.
In the meantime you can sit back and watch, safe in the knowledge that it won't be you or yours who are going to risk going without medicine as a result of the extremist policies that you advocate.
So says the city lawyer who's about to retire aged 52 - I'd suggest that I'm not the one of us most removed from the lives lived by ordinary British people.
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
Sure you want to change the subject. But there's an important point here. Like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the 30 Years' War, you're willing to fight to the bones of the last Finn. If it all goes wrong, it won't afrect you in any meaningful way. You need to accept that this underpins your approach to Brexit and allows you to be brutally casual about, for example, the risks of the government continuing to pursue the North Korean model that it currently favours.
Meanwhile, I again risk at the end of the year having to hold my partner while he suffers uncontrollable seizures because someone decided that continuing a scorched earth policy towards the EU was more important than reliably securing the supply of medicines.
We will never agree, clearly.
No I'don't think the government will allow a shortage of medicines under any circumstances. I think they they would use every piece of emergency legislation, and every available civil and military resource available to them, to prevent it occurring.
Well that leaves me completely reassured. Given that last time this came up Leavers were claiming that the sky was green in response to detailed and credible accounts of likely shortages and even the Health Secretary was careful not to say that there would be no shortages in the event of no deal, you will forgive me for once again pointing to your complete lack of any stake in this and noting that you can safely advocate the most extreme outcomes safe in the knowledge that you won't suffer in the slightest come what may.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
The response I heard on the R4 News sounded OK to me. He stressed his record in running New York, contrasted his business success with Trump's inheritance, pointed out all the money he had given away, and returned to the key object of getting rid of Trump.
He was weaker on the attacks of sexism, but then his defence there is intrinsicly weak.
The R4 coverage was selective, and decidedly generous. I think they tend to interpret neutrality as not fully reporting the absolute shellacking of a particular candidate, while trying to present some of the better moments for him too.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
He seems to think he can just cruise to victory off the back of $400m ads that he delegates to someone else.
As I said, it's an approach that's worked for him many times before.
Although many people do that now as the availability of the best Cannabis Oil is denied to UK patients with epilepsy by the frequently toxic (when it doesn't deliver the medicine your cause wants) NICE. Many face similar deprevation of the best treatments for diseases such as cancer when drugs are denied to them.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
That's a pretty impressive bit of whataboutery to justify risking my other half's health to prove a political point. Welcome to the death cult.
Some of us have lived with these conundrums in our families for decades. Whataboutery it is not. Experience of illness and medical supplies it is.
Death cult is your personal construction that resides in your imagination. Enjoy the ride.
Take your time to explain why your completely unconnected point about availability of medicines in any way justifies the government conniving in an approved medicine becoming unavailable as a result of its unconnected ideological programme.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
The response I heard on the R4 News sounded OK to me. He stressed his record in running New York, contrasted his business success with Trump's inheritance, pointed out all the money he had given away, and returned to the key object of getting rid of Trump.
He was weaker on the attacks of sexism, but then his defence there is intrinsicly weak.
The R4 coverage was selective, and decidedly generous. I think they tend to interpret neutrality as not fully reporting the absolute shellacking of a particular candidate, while trying to present some of the better moments for him too.
you mean like they did with Corbyn.. If you had been listening to the BBC during their election coverage you would have thought that the election was too close to call !!
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
He seems to think he can just cruise to victory off the back of $400m ads that he delegates to someone else.
As I said, it's an approach that's worked for him many times before.
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
He seems to think he can just cruise to victory off the back of $400m ads that he delegates to someone else.
As I said, it's an approach that's worked for him many times before.
If I was really brave I'd lay both Sanders and Bloomberg down to about £950 of liability and go bright green on most of the rest.
I'm not that brave as I only want to take real risks with losing up to £300 in this market, which I can offset against profits on the Tory leadership and General last year.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Having been touting for JRM, you did switch horses to Boris earlier than most, for sure. The election majority was so obvious that even I had money on it.
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
Wrong, I was very much in the minority on Boris on here and had you followed my predictions last year you would also have made money on Morrison and Trudeau being re elected too and I have been saying Sanders is the likely Democratic nominee for a while as well which now looks a strong possibility
How the hell did super-methodical Bloomberg not get himself prepared for these entirely predictable attacks with well-crafted responses? Surely it should all have been rehearsed. He's failed the most basic test.
Andrew Yang also pointed out that Michael Bloomberg was underprepared.
I wonder whether it points to a different problem. A man as rich as Michael Bloomberg is almost certainly unused to subordinates bringing his personal failings to his attention. Preparing for such attacks needs a willingness for those preparing him to attack him viciously. Would he be ready to undergo such an assault in preparation? Would his aides feel able to provide it?
Yes,I bet that was the problem. They no doubt soft-soaped the attacks in rehearsal. With all that money and an experienced staff, that is a mistake which should not have happened. It means he is not up to this.
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re election
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Having been touting for JRM, you did switch horses to Boris earlier than most, for sure. The election majority was so obvious that even I had money on it.
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
Wrong, I was very much in the minority on Boris on here and had you followed my predictions last year you would also have made money on Morrison and Trudeau being re elected too and I have been saying Sanders is the likely Democratic nominee for a while as well which now looks a strong possibility
You were also adamant before then that JRM would be next leader, because he was leading the ConHome surveys. You were also adamtant that that Biden would be Democrat nominee, because he was leading the polls.
Simply parroting whatever the polls currently say and switching when they switch, does not make you a sage when the final polls are right.
Although many people do that now as the availability of the best Cannabis Oil is denied to UK patients with epilepsy by the frequently toxic (when it doesn't deliver the medicine your cause wants) NICE. Many face similar deprevation of the best treatments for diseases such as cancer when drugs are denied to them.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
That's a pretty impressive bit of whataboutery to justify risking my other half's health to prove a political point. Welcome to the death cult.
Some of us have lived with these conundrums in our families for decades. Whataboutery it is not. Experience of illness and medical supplies it is.
Death cult is your personal construction that resides in your imagination. Enjoy the ride.
Take your time to explain why your completely unconnected point about availability of medicines in any way justifies the government conniving in an approved medicine becoming unavailable as a result of its unconnected ideological programme.
Feel free to lick the pencil before starting.
Pretty simple really. I did give you a clue if you wanted to see it.
In what way is the government planning to change the role of NICE?
If NICE approve a drug the supply channels for that drug will be open (but you may need to fight to get the drug flowing through the open channel – but many families are used to this kind of battle) and you will be able to get the drug you need. If NICE withdraw approval, then that is another matter.
Not all drugs are available in the required quantity all of the time. There are global shortages of some drugs. HRT treatment and contraception drugs are the most recent to be publicised. It is a very hard argument to win that 'My Need' is greater than the need of 'A N Other' in Outer Mongolia when global supply is less than global demand. I'm not sure that I have more money or I shout louder gain much credence. To believe that a drug will have permanent availability is naïve in the globalised and increasingly less healthy world we occupy.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
What on earth makes you think that's his main objective?
Although many people do that now as the availability of the best Cannabis Oil is denied to UK patients with epilepsy by the frequently toxic (when it doesn't deliver the medicine your cause wants) NICE. Many face similar deprevation of the best treatments for diseases such as cancer when drugs are denied to them.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
That's a pretty impressive bit of whataboutery to justify risking my other half's health to prove a political point. Welcome to the death cult.
Some of us have lived with these conundrums in our families for decades. Whataboutery it is not. Experience of illness and medical supplies it is.
Death cult is your personal construction that resides in your imagination. Enjoy the ride.
Take your time to explain why your completely unconnected point about availability of medicines in any way justifies the government conniving in an approved medicine becoming unavailable as a result of its unconnected ideological programme.
Feel free to lick the pencil before starting.
Pretty simple really. I did give you a clue if you wanted to see it.
In what way is the government planning to change the role of NICE?
If NICE approve a drug the supply channels for that drug will be open (but you may need to fight to get the drug flowing through the open channel – but many families are used to this kind of battle) and you will be able to get the drug you need. If NICE withdraw approval, then that is another matter.
Not all drugs are available in the required quantity all of the time. There are global shortages of some drugs. HRT treatment and contraception drugs are the most recent to be publicised. It is a very hard argument to win that 'My Need' is greater than the need of 'A N Other' in Outer Mongolia when global supply is less than global demand. I'm not sure that I have more money or I shout louder gain much credence. To believe that a drug will have permanent availability is naïve in the globalised and increasingly less healthy world we occupy.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Having been touting for JRM, you did switch horses to Boris earlier than most, for sure. The election majority was so obvious that even I had money on it.
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
Wrong, I was very much in the minority on Boris on here and had you followed my predictions last year you would also have made money on Morrison and Trudeau being re elected too and I have been saying Sanders is the likely Democratic nominee for a while as well which now looks a strong possibility
You were also adamant before then that JRM would be next leader, because he was leading the ConHome surveys. You were also adamtant that that Biden would be Democrat nominee, because he was leading the polls.
Simply parroting whatever the polls currently say and switching when they switch, does not make you a sage when the final polls are right.
No I wasn't, I said at the time he was in contention, I never said Boris would not be leader.
I also never said Biden would be nominee, I said he would be the best general election candidate which is not the same thing.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
You'll forgive me if I trust the word of this guy over yours from last time round:
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Having been touting for JRM, you did switch horses to Boris earlier than most, for sure. The election majority was so obvious that even I had money on it.
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
Wrong, I was very much in the minority on Boris on here and had you followed my predictions last year you would also have made money on Morrison and Trudeau being re elected too and I have been saying Sanders is the likely Democratic nominee for a while as well which now looks a strong possibility
You were also adamant before then that JRM would be next leader, because he was leading the ConHome surveys. You were also adamtant that that Biden would be Democrat nominee, because he was leading the polls.
Simply parroting whatever the polls currently say and switching when they switch, does not make you a sage when the final polls are right.
No I wasn't, I said at the time he was in contention, I never said Boris would not be leader.
I also never said Biden would be nominee, I said he would be the best general election candidate which is not the same thing.
Please don't lie
I'm not lying, you were touting JRM and Biden. Simply shouting loudly whatever a poll says without understanding that polls are a rather meaningless snapshot rather than a fixed oracle, is not wise.
Bloomberg is unlikely now to be the nominee but that was always the case but the fiercely personal attacks on him by the other Democratic contenders, especially Warren is not exactly going to make him enthusiastic about getting behind whoever does end up nominee, especially if it is a populist leftwinger like Sanders.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
That's bollocks. Bloomberg's main objective is to stop Trump and running as an Indy would make a second Trump term more likely.
We can simply file it alongside declaring war on Iran, sending troops to Scotland, Farage as future PM and Boris preferring to resign rather than delay Brexit beyond last October.
And Boris as next Tory leader and PM and winning a majority, the key UK political developments last year
Having been touting for JRM, you did switch horses to Boris earlier than most, for sure. The election majority was so obvious that even I had money on it.
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
Wrong, I was very much in the minority on Democratic nominee for a while as well which now looks a strong possibility
You were also adamant before then that JRM would be next leader, because he was leading the ConHome surveys. You were also adamtant that that Biden would be Democrat nominee, because he was leading the polls.
Simply parroting whatever the polls currently say and switching when they switch, does not make you a sage when the final polls are right.
No I wasn't, I said at the time he was in contention, I never said Boris would not be leader.
I also never said Biden would be nominee, I said he would be the best general election candidate which is not the same thing.
Please don't lie
I'm not lying, you were touting JRM and Biden. Simply shouting loudly whatever a poll says without understanding that polls are a rather meaningless snapshot rather than a fixed oracle, is not wise.
You are lying, please desist.
I repeat I never said Boris would not be leader, though at one stage I did stay JRM could also be a contender alongside Boris.
I also said Biden would be the best general election candidate but Sanders would likely be the nominee.
If you cannot find anything to disprove what I have said above then I suggest you stop making false statements
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
You'll forgive me if I trust the word of this guy over yours from last time round:
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
That guy is both speaking about a potential no deal Brexit later that month last year later which never happened. And its also couched in multiple terms to say it is a possibility, even a slim possibility.
Yet you're claiming that its what will happen which is garbage. You aren't matching what he's saying whatsoever.
I've got my twitter set to USA, #Warrenforthewin is trending #1
If you think primary voters are represented by twitter then Warren is 34 on BF.
They're not, but she isn't THAT far behind in raw % terms to Biden and Bloomberg. In a close race a few % points can make a colossal perceived difference to chances.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
You'll forgive me if I trust the word of this guy over yours from last time round:
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
A deal was agreed, but the remain MPs decided to gamble and voted it down in order to overturn the referendum result, and you were cheering them on.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
You'll forgive me if I trust the word of this guy over yours from last time round:
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
That guy is both speaking about a potential no deal Brexit later that month last year later which never happened. And its also couched in multiple terms to say it is a possibility, even a slim possibility.
Yet you're claiming that its what will happen which is garbage. You aren't matching what he's saying whatsoever.
The words I have used repeatedly are "willingness", "jeopardise" and "risk". Evidently you can't read.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
You'll forgive me if I trust the word of this guy over yours from last time round:
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
That guy is both speaking about a potential no deal Brexit later that month last year later which never happened. And its also couched in multiple terms to say it is a possibility, even a slim possibility.
Yet you're claiming that its what will happen which is garbage. You aren't matching what he's saying whatsoever.
The words I have used repeatedly are "willingness", "jeopardise" and "risk". Evidently you can't read.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
All of that is a complete non sequitur, a desperate attempt to justify to yourself your willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others for entirely non-clinical reasons so you can pursue your extreme North Korean model of Brexit. These are not drugs that are in any way at the margins of clinical need. The only reason their supply may be disrupted is because the government is willing to jeopardise their supply in order to crash out without a deal.
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
There is no pain and suffering being inflicted upon others besides in the tormented ravings of your imagination. I feel pity for you, most people grow up out of inventing imaginary terrors of a monster in the cupboard.
You'll forgive me if I trust the word of this guy over yours from last time round:
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
That guy is both speaking about a potential no deal Brexit later that month last year later which never happened. And its also couched in multiple terms to say it is a possibility, even a slim possibility.
Yet you're claiming that its what will happen which is garbage. You aren't matching what he's saying whatsoever.
The words I have used repeatedly are "willingness", "jeopardise" and "risk". Evidently you can't read.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
You're entirely willing to see it happen. And if it happens, your reaction will be "what a shame, never mind, Brexit purity made it all worth it".
Is Bloomberg a bubble? Could the next few days be the last chance to lay him at anything in single digits?
And WTF is Warren so low in the polls? Is it because Bernie is obviously the stronger Left candidate? Or is it sexism?
But anyway, does it really matter so much who gets the Dem nomination given that Trump is unelectable?
1. Maybe, but also that the market was assuming Bloomberg's rise in the polls would continue (he has been rising at a pretty steady 1.5% per week for 8 weeks basically). So even if he just stalls that will really hurt him, and given how close Super Tuesday was any fall in support will be fatal. So I wouldn't say it was a bubble (after all, his rising polls were impressively durable and reliable before) but more that the market is rightly sensitive to any problems arising for him.
2. Honestly, good question. Possibly just because there was only room for one of them to avoid splitting the vote and she never supplanted his larger hard-code/base. Could be sexism though, I find it hard to argue he's obviously more impressive than her and women often suffer from losing out for no clear reason in elections.
3. I think Trump is a modest outsider for re-election, but he clearly stands a chance. He's 'only' polling a few % behind nationally and that is for registered voters. Adjust for turnout and electoral college efficiency and Trump is basically a tossup for re-election.
Goodness me, listening to the clips from last night's debate brought home to me how much the DNC have messed up the contest for the Democratic presidential nominee. Trump was always highly vulnerable, yet they took a risk by backing from the outset a near-geriatric establishment candidate with a track record of gaffes. They could have set rules which forced candidates to drop out earlier after failing to meet much higher thresholds to qualify for debates, but didn't.
The result is that in late February after two actual votes there are still 6 candidates being given a platform to go hammer and tongs for each other with Trump laughing from the sidelines. It's a bit like a game of Diplomacy, with those trailing to ganging up together to try and discredit any candidate who gets their nose in front. Last night was Bloomberg's turn, with Sanders also getting flack.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
You're entirely willing to see it happen. And if it happens, your reaction will be "what a shame, never mind, Brexit purity made it all worth it".
There is a minute risk to everything. What you're claiming is as absurd and ludicrous as pretending I'm willing to see my children die in a horrific car crash just because I drive with them in the car.
Unless you're prepared to become a mad recluse like Howard Hughes there's always minute risks in life.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
You're entirely willing to see it happen. And if it happens, your reaction will be "what a shame, never mind, Brexit purity made it all worth it".
There is a minute risk to everything. What you're claiming is as absurd and ludicrous as pretending I'm willing to see my children die in a horrific car crash just because I drive with them in the car.
Unless you're prepared to become a mad recluse like Howard Hughes there's always minute risks in life.
In what way is it a minute risk? It's a risk that when assessed by anyone who is not a deranged fruitcake like you is seen to be a very real risk.
But thanks for confirming that if it happens, you'll regard all the pain and suffering that was caused as worth it to secure your North Korean model of Brexit.
Goodness me, listening to the clips from last night's debate brought home to me how much the DNC have messed up the contest for the Democratic presidential nominee. Trump was always highly vulnerable, yet they took a risk by backing from the outset a near-geriatric establishment candidate with a track record of gaffes. They could have set rules which forced candidates to drop out earlier after failing to meet much higher thresholds to qualify for debates, but didn't...
Had they followed the second of your suggestions, the likelihood is that the battle would now be between the near geriatric establishment candidate, and the near geriatric anti-establishment candidate...
Goodness me, listening to the clips from last night's debate brought home to me how much the DNC have messed up the contest for the Democratic presidential nominee. Trump was always highly vulnerable, yet they took a risk by backing from the outset a near-geriatric establishment candidate with a track record of gaffes. They could have set rules which forced candidates to drop out earlier after failing to meet much higher thresholds to qualify for debates, but didn't.
The result is that in late February after two actual votes there are still 6 candidates being given a platform to go hammer and tongs for each other with Trump laughing from the sidelines. It's a bit like a game of Diplomacy, with those trailing to ganging up together to try and discredit any candidate who gets their nose in front. Last night was Bloomberg's turn, with Sanders also getting flack.
there are still 6 candidates being given a platform
And to make it even more ridiculous, two of whom have very dubious credentials as members of the Democratic Party
Bloomberg would be wise to avoid any future debates and focus on his endless ad campaigns instead. If you are going to buy the presidency you should really commit to it fully. The poor performance in the debates has changed the narrative around him overnight. He would fare much better in the general against trump than he will trying to debate Sanders and Warren etc in the primary.
Hes about the only one I could see potentially beating Trump in the general. Doesn't need to debate Trump either if he can just buy billions of ads against him. The ads were working for Bloomberg so far.
At this point with the US economy doing OK there will be no appetite for a radical solution like Bernie or Warren.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
You're entirely willing to see it happen. And if it happens, your reaction will be "what a shame, never mind, Brexit purity made it all worth it".
There is a minute risk to everything. What you're claiming is as absurd and ludicrous as pretending I'm willing to see my children die in a horrific car crash just because I drive with them in the car.
Unless you're prepared to become a mad recluse like Howard Hughes there's always minute risks in life.
In what way is it a minute risk? It's a risk that when assessed by anyone who is not a deranged fruitcake like you is seen to be a very real risk.
But thanks for confirming that if it happens, you'll regard all the pain and suffering that was caused as worth it to secure your North Korean model of Brexit.
Its a minute risk because there's no evidence or logic for it. Simply saying "can't guarantee it won't happen" doesn't change that, there aren't many guarantees in life.
I don't want a North Korean model of Brexit. I want a Canadian or Australian model of Brexit. I have family in Canada and used to live in Australia - neither are ignorant backwaters to be terrified about.
Bloomberg would be wise to avoid any future debates and focus on his endless ad campaigns instead. If you are going to buy the presidency you should really commit to it fully. The poor performance in the debates has changed the narrative around him overnight. He would fare much better in the general against trump than he will trying to debate Sanders and Warren etc in the primary.
Hes about the only one I could see potentially beating Trump in the general. Doesn't need to debate Trump either if he can just buy billions of ads against him. The ads were working for Bloomberg so far....
That approach might just have worked had he skipped this debate, and spent a few more millions spinning the decision.
Bloomberg would be wise to avoid any future debates and focus on his endless ad campaigns instead. If you are going to buy the presidency you should really commit to it fully. The poor performance in the debates has changed the narrative around him overnight. He would fare much better in the general against trump than he will trying to debate Sanders and Warren etc in the primary.
Hes about the only one I could see potentially beating Trump in the general. Doesn't need to debate Trump either if he can just buy billions of ads against him. The ads were working for Bloomberg so far.
At this point with the US economy doing OK there will be no appetite for a radical solution like Bernie or Warren.
The ads were working on a fairly proportion number voters, in states that haven't voted yet, who haven't yet necessarily paid much attention, who won't necessarily vote, against minimal TV opposition. It remains to be seen whether the lead will hold up to an actual primary, and also whether it will result in actual votes.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
You're entirely willing to see it happen. And if it happens, your reaction will be "what a shame, never mind, Brexit purity made it all worth it".
There is a minute risk to everything. What you're claiming is as absurd and ludicrous as pretending I'm willing to see my children die in a horrific car crash just because I drive with them in the car.
Unless you're prepared to become a mad recluse like Howard Hughes there's always minute risks in life.
In what way is it a minute risk? It's a risk that when assessed by anyone who is not a deranged fruitcake like you is seen to be a very real risk.
But thanks for confirming that if it happens, you'll regard all the pain and suffering that was caused as worth it to secure your North Korean model of Brexit.
Its a minute risk because there's no evidence or logic for it. Simply saying "can't guarantee it won't happen" doesn't change that, there aren't many guarantees in life.
I don't want a North Korean model of Brexit. I want a Canadian or Australian model of Brexit. I have family in Canada and used to live in Australia - neither are ignorant backwaters to be terrified about.
I've linked in this thread to a blogpost by a Senior Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacy and Drug Safety who explains how the supply lines are already under strain and how adding further disruption would strain them further. I realise that you've had enough of experts, but that isn't exactly hard logic to follow. Though having seen your amazing pratfall the other night when you confused percentages and absolute numbers, I appreciate you may struggle more than most. No wonder you mention ignorant backwaters - they're your natural milieu.
But moving from the weakness in your head, let's focus on the vacuum in your heart. As a zealot, you are entirely comfortable with the idea that great pain and suffering may be caused in your obsessive pursuit of a North Korean model of Brexit. The end justifies the means in your view.
Boris showed that being unelectable is relative, not an absolute.
As did Hilary in ‘16.
This is true. It's all relative. When you vote, unless it's North Korea, you choose one option over the alternatives. So, yes, Trump is electable this year if the Dems go for somebody even more unelectable than him. Harvey Weinstein, for example, would struggle to take California, let alone anything in the Rust Belt.
Bloomberg would be wise to avoid any future debates and focus on his endless ad campaigns instead. If you are going to buy the presidency you should really commit to it fully. The poor performance in the debates has changed the narrative around him overnight. He would fare much better in the general against trump than he will trying to debate Sanders and Warren etc in the primary.
Hes about the only one I could see potentially beating Trump in the general. Doesn't need to debate Trump either if he can just buy billions of ads against him. The ads were working for Bloomberg so far.
At this point with the US economy doing OK there will be no appetite for a radical solution like Bernie or Warren.
The ads were working on a fairly proportion number voters, in states that haven't voted yet, who haven't yet necessarily paid much attention, who won't necessarily vote, against minimal TV opposition. It remains to be seen whether the lead will hold up to an actual primary, and also whether it will result in actual votes.
South Carolina will be a fascinating test. And, arguably, second only in importance to the future of US democracy after November's election.
Bloomberg would be wise to avoid any future debates and focus on his endless ad campaigns instead. If you are going to buy the presidency you should really commit to it fully. The poor performance in the debates has changed the narrative around him overnight. He would fare much better in the general against trump than he will trying to debate Sanders and Warren etc in the primary.
Hes about the only one I could see potentially beating Trump in the general. Doesn't need to debate Trump either if he can just buy billions of ads against him. The ads were working for Bloomberg so far.
At this point with the US economy doing OK there will be no appetite for a radical solution like Bernie or Warren.
The ads were working on a fairly proportion number voters, in states that haven't voted yet, who haven't yet necessarily paid much attention, who won't necessarily vote, against minimal TV opposition. It remains to be seen whether the lead will hold up to an actual primary, and also whether it will result in actual votes.
South Carolina will be a fascinating test. And, arguably, second only in importance to the future of US democracy after November's election.
The current President, who won an election to get there is unelectable? It's an interesting take.
Different now to then. Take Jeremy Corbyn, for example. He was electable in 2017 (although not elected) but was unelectable in 2019, i.e. could not win since viewed by a critical mass of the public as unfit for the office he was putting himself forward for. Same with Trump in 2020. This will become obvious on Wednesday 4th November.
He has a very thoughtful and informed podcast; Reasons to be Cheerful. With a chap called Geoff Lloyd.
I agree, he's one of those politicians who seems to have learned lessons from doing poorly at a big job and may well be better second time around. Hague was the same, a strong cabinet minister after an iffy LoTO.
Yes, you wrote (and I objected to) the phrase "willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others".
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
You're entirely willing to see it happen. And if it happens, your reaction will be "what a shame, never mind, Brexit purity made it all worth it".
There is a minute risk to everything. What you're claiming is as absurd and ludicrous as pretending I'm willing to see my children die in a horrific car crash just because I drive with them in the car.
Unless you're prepared to become a mad recluse like Howard Hughes there's always minute risks in life.
In what way is it a minute risk? It's a risk that when assessed by anyone who is not a deranged fruitcake like you is seen to be a very real risk.
But thanks for confirming that if it happens, you'll regard all the pain and suffering that was caused as worth it to secure your North Korean model of Brexit.
Its a minute risk because there's no evidence or logic for it. Simply saying "can't guarantee it won't happen" doesn't change that, there aren't many guarantees in life.
I don't want a North Korean model of Brexit. I want a Canadian or Australian model of Brexit. I have family in Canada and used to live in Australia - neither are ignorant backwaters to be terrified about.
I've linked in this thread to a blogpost by a Senior Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacy and Drug Safety who explains how the supply lines are already under strain and how adding further disruption would strain them further. I realise that you've had enough of experts, but that isn't exactly hard logic to follow. Though having seen your amazing pratfall the other night when you confused percentages and absolute numbers, I appreciate you may struggle more than most. No wonder you mention ignorant backwaters - they're your natural milieu.
But moving from the weakness in your head, let's focus on the vacuum in your heart. As a zealot, you are entirely comfortable with the idea that great pain and suffering may be caused in your obsessive pursuit of a North Korean model of Brexit. The end justifies the means in your view.
I didn't confuse percentages and absolute numbers the other night, you did. Then when challenged you refused to defend your innumeracy.
He has a very thoughtful and informed podcast; Reasons to be Cheerful. With a chap called Geoff Lloyd.
I agree, he's one of those politicians who seems to have learned lessons from doing poorly at a big job and may well be better second time around. Hague was the same, a strong cabinet minister after an iffy LoTO.
The good news for Ed is that he will exceed the level of competence that his brother exhibited, either as shadow minister or minister.
In truth he may be better suited to the role on Minister rather than Leader. He has a greater ability to think than many on either side.
The current President, who won an election to get there is unelectable? It's an interesting take.
Different now to then. Take Jeremy Corbyn, for example. He was electable in 2017 (although not elected) but was unelectable in 2019, i.e. could not win since viewed by a critical mass of the public as unfit for the office he was putting himself forward for. Same with Trump in 2020. This will become obvious on Wednesday 4th November.
Questions, questions - But anyway, does it really matter so much who gets the Dem nomination given that Trump is unelectable?
The current President, who won an election to get there is unelectable? It's an interesting take.
... but now we've seen him be President.
And his polling numbers aren't that bad. His supporters (somehow) like what he's doing. This assumption that the Dems can run anyone and still beat Trump is moronic, and very likely going to be costly.
The current President, who won an election to get there is unelectable? It's an interesting take.
Different now to then. Take Jeremy Corbyn, for example. He was electable in 2017 (although not elected) but was unelectable in 2019, i.e. could not win since viewed by a critical mass of the public as unfit for the office he was putting himself forward for. Same with Trump in 2020. This will become obvious on Wednesday 4th November.
Questions, questions - But anyway, does it really matter so much who gets the Dem nomination given that Trump is unelectable?
The current President, who won an election to get there is unelectable? It's an interesting take.
... but now we've seen him be President.
And his polling numbers aren't that bad. His supporters (somehow) like what he's doing. This assumption that the Dems can run anyone and still beat Trump is moronic.
Comments
Every budget we go through this trailing the potential loss of higher rate pension relief. It probably ought to happen, but always seems to serve the role of softening people up for something else.
Interesting that beneath the hyperbole of the anti- article on Mail online, the balance of comments so far is pretty even between angries from Tunbridge Wells and other pensioners who feel it's high time the wealthy made a sacrifice.
The full extent of the entitlement of the super rich is not fully appreciable by the rest of humanity.
We are not in the heaven that you see, and I doubt we will descend further into the hell you envisage.
Good for just under 3x stake overnight.
I wonder whether it points to a different problem. A man as rich as Michael Bloomberg is almost certainly unused to subordinates bringing his personal failings to his attention. Preparing for such attacks needs a willingness for those preparing him to attack him viciously. Would he be ready to undergo such an assault in preparation? Would his aides feel able to provide it?
Fact remains that if you bet and put money on all of your variously wild predictions you'd be well out of pocket.
Forgetting the name of the Mexican President in a live interview wasn't great for her, either
And she kind of lost it during the debate last night.
No I'don't think the government will allow a shortage of medicines under any circumstances. I think they they would use every piece of emergency legislation, and every available civil and military resource available to them, to prevent it occurring.
(I'm still interested in your views on pensions policy, as I was with your excellent piece on Coronavirus yesterday).
Death cult is your personal construction that resides in your imagination. Enjoy the ride.
He was weaker on the attacks of sexism, but then his defence there is intrinsically weak.
The odds increased from absolute zero to minuscule.
And if Sanders is the nominee, I'd expect him to concentrate on funding the Senate races.
I think they tend to interpret neutrality as not fully reporting the absolute shellacking of a particular candidate, while trying to present some of the better moments for him too.
Feel free to lick the pencil before starting.
I'm not that brave as I only want to take real risks with losing up to £300 in this market, which I can offset against profits on the Tory leadership and General last year.
https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230333038661373952?s=20
https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230341101141340161?s=20
https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230351439890911234?s=20
You were also adamtant that that Biden would be Democrat nominee, because he was leading the polls.
Simply parroting whatever the polls currently say and switching when they switch, does not make you a sage when the final polls are right.
In what way is the government planning to change the role of NICE?
If NICE approve a drug the supply channels for that drug will be open (but you may need to fight to get the drug flowing through the open channel – but many families are used to this kind of battle) and you will be able to get the drug you need. If NICE withdraw approval, then that is another matter.
Not all drugs are available in the required quantity all of the time. There are global shortages of some drugs. HRT treatment and contraception drugs are the most recent to be publicised. It is a very hard argument to win that 'My Need' is greater than the need of 'A N Other' in Outer Mongolia when global supply is less than global demand. I'm not sure that I have more money or I shout louder gain much credence. To believe that a drug will have permanent availability is naïve in the globalised and increasingly less healthy world we occupy.
I like Bloomberg's line: "The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three homes."
But to death cultists like you, that doesn’t matter.
Value at Trump 1.7
517.90 Biden
244.55 Sanders
1129.41 E Warren
-38.16 Buttigieg
-2690.15 Clinton
-177.44 Bloomberg
780.84 Klobuchar
-722.71 Gabbard
12556.89 Steyer
I also never said Biden would be nominee, I said he would be the best general election candidate which is not the same thing.
Please don't lie
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/brexit-medicine-shortage.aspx
“A no-deal Brexit complicates the existing drug shortage problem, with potential border delays. In the short-term this disruption at ports could be serious.”
"There have been concerns that there is no guarantee that loss of life due to lack of access to medicines will be avoided if there is a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s use of non-disclosure agreements in discussions with some pharmaceutical bodies, to enable honest discussions, has led to concerns about a lack of transparency. Pharmacists seem divided on whether enough has been done to mitigate Brexit-related medicine shortages."
All death cultists are able to provide are airy assurances derived from their obsessive policy objective. Not the least bit comforting.
I repeat I never said Boris would not be leader, though at one stage I did stay JRM could also be a contender alongside Boris.
I also said Biden would be the best general election candidate but Sanders would likely be the nominee.
If you cannot find anything to disprove what I have said above then I suggest you stop making false statements
Crap, I don't actually remember the end of Animal Farm anymore, but you get the idea.
Anyway, they all voted for the credible third party candidate, who was promising real change.
The end.
Yet you're claiming that its what will happen which is garbage. You aren't matching what he's saying whatsoever.
Is Bloomberg a bubble? Could the next few days be the last chance to lay him at anything in single digits?
And WTF is Warren so low in the polls? Is it because Bernie is obviously the stronger Left candidate? Or is it sexism?
But anyway, does it really matter so much who gets the Dem nomination given that Trump is unelectable?
As did Hilary in ‘16.
The only difference is that it doesn’t say ‘European Union’ on the front.
THIS AINT WOT I VOTED FOR!! FUMING!!
That's not happening. No pain and suffering is being inflicted upon others.
2. Honestly, good question. Possibly just because there was only room for one of them to avoid splitting the vote and she never supplanted his larger hard-code/base. Could be sexism though, I find it hard to argue he's obviously more impressive than her and women often suffer from losing out for no clear reason in elections.
3. I think Trump is a modest outsider for re-election, but he clearly stands a chance. He's 'only' polling a few % behind nationally and that is for registered voters. Adjust for turnout and electoral college efficiency and Trump is basically a tossup for re-election.
The result is that in late February after two actual votes there are still 6 candidates being given a platform to go hammer and tongs for each other with Trump laughing from the sidelines. It's a bit like a game of Diplomacy, with those trailing to ganging up together to try and discredit any candidate who gets their nose in front. Last night was Bloomberg's turn, with Sanders also getting flack.
Any chance of getting it backdated?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-51567465
Unless you're prepared to become a mad recluse like Howard Hughes there's always minute risks in life.
This isn't good news.
But thanks for confirming that if it happens, you'll regard all the pain and suffering that was caused as worth it to secure your North Korean model of Brexit.
And to make it even more ridiculous, two of whom have very dubious credentials as members of the Democratic Party
Hes about the only one I could see potentially beating Trump in the general. Doesn't need to debate Trump either if he can just buy billions of ads against him. The ads were working for Bloomberg so far.
At this point with the US economy doing OK there will be no appetite for a radical solution like Bernie or Warren.
I don't want a North Korean model of Brexit. I want a Canadian or Australian model of Brexit. I have family in Canada and used to live in Australia - neither are ignorant backwaters to be terrified about.
Not now.
But moving from the weakness in your head, let's focus on the vacuum in your heart. As a zealot, you are entirely comfortable with the idea that great pain and suffering may be caused in your obsessive pursuit of a North Korean model of Brexit. The end justifies the means in your view.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230376522663391232
The best answer for the Dems may well be none of the above, but I assume there isn't anyone else even vaguely possible now.
And, arguably, second only in importance to the future of US democracy after November's election.
Mrs Obama? Would she want to? Too close to her release from the constraints of office?
Edit: That reads very poorly - sounds like the cheers are reluctant, rather than her journey to the podium!
In truth he may be better suited to the role on Minister rather than Leader. He has a greater ability to think than many on either side.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
He's at -6, and improving. Not far off where Obama was 1,150 days in.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
He's at -6, and improving. Not far off where Obama was 1,150 days in.
"the Dems can run anyone and still beat Trump is moronic."
Comment of the day so far. Dems are heading to disaster.